MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177081428 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1503027112

Association mapping reveals the role of purifying selection in the maintenance of genomic variation in gene expression

2015· article· en· W2177081428 on OpenAlexaff
Emily B. Josephs, Young Wha Lee, John R. Stinchcombe, Stephen Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of Graduate EducationDirectorate for Education and Human Resources
KeywordsBiologyNegative selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)GeneGene expressionVariation (astronomy)Expression (computer science)GeneticsComputational biologyAssociation mappingSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenomeGenotypeComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolutionary forces that maintain genetic variation in quantitative traits within populations remain poorly understood. One hypothesis suggests that variation is under purifying selection, resulting in an excess of low-frequency variants and a negative correlation between minor allele frequency and selection coefficients. Here, we test these predictions using the genetic loci associated with total expression variation (eQTLs) and allele-specific expression variation (aseQTLs) mapped within a single population of the plant Capsella grandiflora. In addition to finding eQTLs and aseQTLs for a large fraction of genes, we show that alleles at these loci are rarer than expected and exhibit a negative correlation between phenotypic effect size and frequency. Overall, our results show that the distribution of frequencies and effect sizes of the loci responsible for local expression variation within a single outcrossing population are consistent with the effects of purifying selection.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations138
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207