Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype–environment associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying adaptive loci can provide insight into the mechanisms underlying local adaptation. Genotype-environment association (GEA) methods, which identify these loci based on correlations between genetic and environmental data, are particularly promising. Univariate methods have dominated GEA, despite the high dimensional nature of genotype and environment. Multivariate methods, which analyse many loci simultaneously, may be better suited to these data as they consider how sets of markers covary in response to environment. These methods may also be more effective at detecting adaptive processes that result in weak, multilocus signatures. Here, we evaluate four multivariate methods and five univariate and differentiation-based approaches, using published simulations of multilocus selection. We found that Random Forest performed poorly for GEA. Univariate GEAs performed better, but had low detection rates for loci under weak selection. Constrained ordinations, particularly redundancy analysis (RDA), showed a superior combination of low false-positive and high true-positive rates across all levels of selection. These results were robust across the demographic histories, sampling designs, sample sizes and weak population structure tested here. The value of combining detections from different methods was variable and depended on the study goals and knowledge of the drivers of selection. Re-analysis of genomic data from grey wolves highlighted the unique, covarying sets of adaptive loci that could be identified using RDA. Although additional testing is needed, this study indicates that RDA is an effective means of detecting adaptation, including signatures of weak, multilocus selection, providing a powerful tool for investigating the genetic basis of 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 | 0.068 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".