Combining Genotype, Phenotype, and Environment to Infer Potential Candidate Genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population genomic analysis can be an important tool in understanding local adaptation. Identification of potential adaptive loci in such analyses is usually based on the survey of a large genomic dataset in combination with environmental variables. Phenotypic data are less commonly incorporated into such studies, although combining a genome scan analysis with a phenotypic trait analysis can greatly improve the insights obtained from each analysis individually. Here, we aimed to identify loci potentially involved in adaptation to climate in 283 Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) samples from throughout the species' range in the southeastern United States. We analyzed associations between phenotypic, molecular, and environmental variables from datasets of 3082 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) loci and 3 categories of phenotypic traits (gene expression, metabolites, and whole-plant traits). We found only 6 SNP loci that displayed potential signals of local adaptation. Five of the 6 identified SNPs are linked to gene expression traits for lignin development, and 1 is linked with whole-plant traits. We subsequently compared the 6 candidate genes with environmental variables and found a high correlation in only 3 of them (R2 > 0.2). Our study highlights the need for a combination of genotypes, phenotypes, and environmental variables, and for an appropriate sampling scheme and study design, to improve confidence in the identification of potential candidate genes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".