Effects of Gene Action, Marker Density, and Timing of Selection on the Performance of Landscape Genomic Scans of Local Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic "scans" to identify loci that contribute to local adaptation are becoming increasingly common. Many methods used for such studies have assumed that local adaptation is created by loci experiencing antagonistic pleiotropy (AP) and that the selected locus itself is assayed, and few consider how signals of selection change through time. However, most empirical data sets have marker density too low to assume that a selected locus itself is assayed, researchers seldom know when selection was first imposed, and many locally adapted loci likely experience not AP but conditional neutrality (CN). We simulated data to evaluate how these factors affect the performance of tests for genotype-environment association (GEA). We found that 3 types of regression-based analyses (linear models, mixed linear models, and latent factor mixed models) and an implementation of BayEnv all performed well, with high rates of true positives and low rates of false positives, when the selected locus experienced AP, and when the selected locus was assayed directly. However, all tests had reduced power to detect loci experiencing CN, and the probability of detecting associations was sharply reduced when physically linked rather than causative loci were sampled. AP also maintained detectable GEAs much longer than CN. Our analyses suggest that if local adaptation is often driven by loci experiencing CN, genome-scan methods will have limited capacity to find loci responsible for local adaptation.
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 | 0.064 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".