The WZA: A window-based method for characterizing genotype-environment association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genotype environment association (GEA) studies have the potential to elucidate the genetic basis of local adaptation in natural populations. Specifically, GEA approaches look for a correlation between allele frequencies and putatively selective features of the environment. Genetic markers with extreme evidence of correlation with the environment are presumed to be tagging the location of alleles that contribute to local adaptation. In this study, we propose a new method for GEA studies called the weighted-Z analysis (WZA) that combines information from closely linked sites into analysis windows in a way that was inspired by methods for calculating F ST . We analyze simulations modelling local adaptation to heterogeneous environments either using a GEA method that controls for population structure or an uncorrected approach. In the majority of cases we tested, the WZA either outperformed single-SNP based approaches or performed similarly. The WZA outperformed individual SNP approaches when the measured environment is not perfectly correlated with the true selection pressure or when a small number of individuals or demes was sampled. We apply the WZA to previously published data from lodgepole pine and identified candidate loci that were not found in the original study.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".