Genes and sites under adaptation at the phylogenetic scale also exhibit adaptation at the population-genetic scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adaptation in protein-coding sequences can be detected from multiple sequence alignments across species, or alternatively by leveraging polymorphism data inside a population. Across species, quantification of the adaptive rate relies on phylogenetic codon models, classically formulated in terms of the ratio of non-synonymous over synonymous substitution rates. Evidence of an accelerated non-synonymous substitution rate is considered a signature of pervasive adaptation. However, because of the background of purifying selection, these models are potentially limited in their sensitivity. Recent developments have led to more sophisticated mutation-selection codon models aimed at making a more detailed quantitative assessment of the interplay between mutation, purifying and positive selection. In this study, we conducted a large-scale exome-wide analysis of placental mammals with mutation-selection models, assessing their performance at detecting proteins and sites under adaptation. Importantly, mutation-selection codon models are based on a population-genetic formalism and thus are directly comparable to McDonald & Kreitman tests at the population level to quantify adaptation. Taking advantage of this relationship between phylogenetic and population genetics, we integrated divergence and polymorphism data across the entire exome for 29 populations across 7 genera, and showed that proteins and sites detected to be under adaptation at the phylogenetic scale are also under adaptation at the population-genetic scale. Altogether, our exome-wide analysis shows that phylogenetic mutation-selection codon models and population-genetic test of adaptation can be reconciled and are congruent, paving the way for integrative models and analyses across individuals and populations. Significance Statement Detecting genes under adaptation represents a key step in the decoding of genomes. Several methods have been proposed, focussing either on the short time scale (population genetics, e.g. human populations), or on the long time scale (phylogenetics, e.g. across mammals). However, the accuracy of these methods is still under debate, and it is still unclear whether the signatures of adaptation are congruent across evolutionary scales. In this study, using novel phylogenetic methods and gathering genome data across and within species, we show that the signatures of adaptation at the phylogenetic and population-genetic scales can be reconciled. While providing a mutual confirmation of the two approaches, our work paves the way for further methodological integration between micro- and macro-evolutionary genomics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".