Shared quantitative trait loci underlying the genetic correlation between continuous traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review genetic correlations among quantitative traits in light of their underlying quantitative trait loci (QTL). We derive an expectation of genetic correlation from the effects of underlying loci and test whether published genetic correlations can be explained by the QTL underlying the traits. While genetically correlated traits shared more QTL (33%) on average than uncorrelated traits (11%), the actual number of shared QTL shared was small. QTL usually predicted the sign of the correlation with good accuracy, but the quantitative prediction was poor. Approximately 25% of trait pairs in the data set had at least one QTL with antagonistic effects. Yet a significant minority (20%) of such trait pairs have net positive genetic correlations due to such antagonistic QTL 'hidden' within positive genetic correlations. We review the evidence on whether shared QTL represent single pleiotropic loci or closely linked monotropic genes, and argue that strict pleiotropy can be viewed as one end of a continuum of recombination rates where r=0. QTL studies of genetic correlation will likely be insufficient to predict evolutionary trajectories over long time spans in large panmictic populations, but will provide important insights into the trade-offs involved in population and species divergence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".