ArticleGenetics2011
A new method to uncover signatures of divergent and stabilizing selection in quantitative traits.
Article in Genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- A method for identifying local adaptation in structured populations.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- Error rates in QST-FST comparisons depend on genetic architecture and estimation procedures.Genetics · 2025Article
- Error rates inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Ecological trade-offs drive phenotypic and genetic differentiation of Arabidopsis thaliana in Europe.Nature communications · 2024Article
- An allele-sharing, moment-based estimator of global, population-specific and population-pair FST under a general model of population structure.PLoS genetics · 2023Review
- A review onEcology and evolution · 2023Review
- Correlational selection in the age of genomics.Nature ecology & evolution · 2021Review
- Local adaptation contributes to gene expression divergence in maize.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- Characterizing the effect of background selection on the polygenicity of brain-related traits.Genomics · 2021Article
- Two centuries of monarch butterfly collections reveal contrasting effects of range expansion and migration loss on wing traits.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Adaptation to drought is coupled with slow growth, but independent from phenology in marginal silver fir (Evolutionary applications · 2020Article
- Detecting selection with a genetic cross.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Potential adaptive divergence between subspecies and populations of snapdragon plants inferred from QMolecular ecology · 2020Article
- Article
- Limited thermal plasticity and geographical divergence in the ovipositor ofRoyal Society open science · 2020Article
- Common gardens in teosintes reveal the establishment of a syndrome of adaptation to altitude.PLoS genetics · 2019Article
- Effects of marker type and filtering criteria onRoyal Society open science · 2019Article
- Population genomics perspectives on convergent adaptation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Review
- The Effects of Demography and Genetics on the Neutral Distribution of Quantitative Traits.Genetics · 2019Article
- Contrasting patterns of divergence at the regulatory and sequence level in EuropeanEcology and evolution · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While it is well understood that the pace of evolution depends on the interplay between natural selection, random genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow, it is not always easy to disentangle the relative roles of these factors with data from natural populations. One popular approach to infer whether the observed degree of population differentiation has been influenced by local adaptation is the comparison of neutral marker gene differentiation (as reflected in FST) and quantitative trait divergence (as reflected in QST). However, this method may lead to compromised statistical power, because FST and QST are summary statistics which neglect information on specific pairs of populations, and because current multivariate tests of neutrality involve an averaging procedure over the traits. Further, most FST-QST comparisons actually replace QST by its expectation over the evolutionary process and are thus theoretically flawed. To overcome these caveats, we derived the statistical distribution of population means generated by random genetic drift and used the probability density of this distribution to test whether the observed pattern could be generated by drift alone. We show that our method can differentiate between genetic drift and selection as a cause of population differentiation even in cases with FST=QST and demonstrate with simulated data that it disentangles drift from selection more accurately than conventional FST-QST tests especially when data sets are small.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.