What can genome‐wide association studies tell us about the evolutionary forces maintaining genetic variation for quantitative traits?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contents 21 I. 21 II. 22 III. 24 IV. 25 V. 29 30 References 30 SUMMARY: Understanding the evolutionary forces that shape genetic variation within species has long been a goal of evolutionary biology. Integrating data for the genetic architecture of traits from genome-wide association mapping studies (GWAS) along with the development of new population genetic methods for identifying selection in sequence data may allow us to evaluate the roles of mutation-selection balance and balancing selection in shaping genetic variation at various scales. Here, we review the theoretical predictions for genetic architecture and additional signals of selection on genomic sequence for the loci that affect traits. Next, we review how plant GWAS have tested for the signatures of various selective scenarios. Limited evidence to date suggests that within-population variation is maintained primarily by mutation-selection balance while variation across the landscape is the result of local adaptation. However, there are a number of inherent biases in these interpretations. We highlight these challenges and suggest ways forward to further understanding of the maintenance of variation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".