Whole‐genome resequencing of extreme phenotypes in collared flycatchers highlights the difficulty of detecting quantitative trait loci in natural populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dissecting the genetic basis of phenotypic variation in natural populations is a long-standing goal in evolutionary biology. One open question is whether quantitative traits are determined only by large numbers of genes with small effects, or whether variation also exists in large-effect loci. We conducted genomewide association analyses of forehead patch size (a sexually selected trait) on 81 whole-genome-resequenced male collared flycatchers with extreme phenotypes, and on 415 males sampled independent of patch size and genotyped with a 50K SNP chip. No SNPs were genomewide statistically significantly associated with patch size. Simulation-based power analyses suggest that the power to detect large-effect loci responsible for 10% of phenotypic variance was <0.5 in the genome resequencing analysis, and <0.1 in the SNP chip analysis. Reducing the recombination by two-thirds relative to collared flycatchers modestly increased power. Tripling sample size increased power to >0.8 for resequencing of extreme phenotypes (N = 243), but power remained <0.2 for the 50K SNP chip analysis (N = 1245). At least 1 million SNPs were necessary to achieve power >0.8 when analysing 415 randomly sampled phenotypes. However, power of the 50K SNP chip to detect large-effect loci was nearly 0.8 in simulations with a small effective population size of 1500. These results suggest that reliably detecting large-effect trait loci in large natural populations will often require thousands of individuals and near complete sampling of the genome. Encouragingly, far fewer individuals and loci will often be sufficient to reliably detect large-effect loci in small populations with widespread strong linkage disequilibrium.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".