Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29127262›Full record

ArticleGenetics2018

Evidence for Selection-by-Environment but Not Genotype-by-Environment Interactions for Fitness-Related Traits in a Wild Mammal Population.

Adam D Hayward, Josephine M Pemberton, Camillo Berenos, Alastair J Wilson, Jill G Pilkington, Loeske E B Kruuk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Adam D HaywardDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK adam.hayward@stir.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6953-7509
Josephine M PembertonInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3FL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0075-1504
Camillo BerenosInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3FL, UK.
Alastair J WilsonCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5045-2051
Jill G PilkingtonInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3FL, UK.
Loeske E B KruukInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3FL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8588-1123

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do environmental conditions influence selection and genetic variation in wild populations? There is widespread evidence for selection-by-environment interactions (S*E), but we reviewed studies of natural populations estimating the extent of genotype-by-environment interactions (G*E) in response to natural variation in environmental conditions and found that evidence for G*E appears to be rare within single populations in the wild. Studies estimating the simultaneous impact of environmental variation on both selection and genetic variation are especially scarce. Here, we used 24 years of data collected from a wild Soay sheep population to quantify how an important environmental variable, population density, impacts upon (1) selection through annual contribution to fitness and (2) expression of genetic variation, in six morphological and life history traits: body weight, hind leg length, parasite burden, horn length, horn growth, and testicular circumference. Our results supported the existence of S*E: selection was stronger in years of higher population density for all traits apart from horn growth, with directional selection being stronger under more adverse conditions. Quantitative genetic models revealed significant additive genetic variance for body weight, leg length, parasite burden, horn length, and testes size, but not for horn growth or our measure of annual fitness. However, random regression models found variation between individuals in their responses to the environment in only three traits, and did not support the presence of G*E for any trait. Our analyses of St Kilda Soay sheep data thus concurs with our cross-study review that, while natural environmental variation within a population can profoundly alter the strength of selection on phenotypic traits, there is less evidence for its effect on the expression of genetic variance in the wild.

Indexed as

Animals, WildGene-Environment InteractionGenetic Association StudiesGenetic FitnessGenotypePhenotypeSelection, GeneticAlgorithmsAnimalsMammalsPedigreeQuantitative Trait, HeritableSheepenvironmental variationG*Enatural selectionquantitative geneticsrandom regression

Identifiers

PMID29127262
PMCPMC5753868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.