Identifying the genes underlying quantitative traits: a rationale for the QTN programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of identifying the genes or even nucleotides underlying quantitative and adaptive traits has been characterized as the 'QTN programme' and has recently come under severe criticism. Part of the reason for this criticism is that much of the QTN programme has asserted that finding the genes and nucleotides for adaptive and quantitative traits is a fundamental goal, without explaining why it is such a hallowed goal. Here we outline motivations for the QTN programme that offer general insight, regardless of whether QTNs are of large or small effect, and that aid our understanding of the mechanistic dynamics of adaptive evolution. We focus on five areas: (i) vertical integration of insight across different levels of biological organization, (ii) genetic parallelism and the role of pleiotropy in shaping evolutionary dynamics, (iii) understanding the forces maintaining genetic variation in populations, (iv) distinguishing between adaptation from standing variation and new mutation, and (v) the role of genomic architecture in facilitating adaptation. We argue that rather than abandoning the QTN programme, we should refocus our efforts on topics where molecular data will be the most effective for testing hypotheses about phenotypic evolution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".