Molecular Population Genetics and the Search for Adaptive Evolution in Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first papers on plant molecular population genetics were published approximately 10 years ago. Since that time, well over 50 additional studies of plant nucleotide polymorphism have been published, and many of these studies focused on detecting the signature of balancing or positive selection at a locus. In this review, we discuss some of the theoretical and statistical issues surrounding the detection of selection, with focus on plant populations, and we also summarize the empirical plant molecular population genetics literature. At face value, the literature suggests that a history of balancing or positive selection in plant genes is rampant. In two well-studied taxa (maize and Arabidopsis) over 20% of studied genes have been interpreted as containing the signature of selection. We argue that this is probably an overstatement of the prevalence of natural selection in plant genomes, for two reasons. First, demographic effects are difficult to incorporate and have generally not been well integrated into the plant population genetics literature. Second, the genes studied to date are not a random sample, so selected genes may be overrepresented. The next generation of studies in plant molecular population genetics requires additional sampling of local populations, explicit comparisons among loci, and improved theoretical methods to control for demography. Eventually, candidate loci should be confirmed by explicit consideration of phenotypic effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".