Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31400203›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2019

Optimizing the Power to Identify the Genetic Basis of Complex Traits with Evolve and Resequence Studies.

Christos Vlachos, Robert Kofler

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Signatures of selection inEvolutionary applications · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Christos VlachosInstitute für Populationsgenetik, Vetmeduni Vienna, Wien, Austria.
Robert KoflerInstitute für Populationsgenetik, Vetmeduni Vienna, Wien, Austria.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 29016Austrian Science Fund FWF W 1225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolve and resequence (E&R) studies are frequently used to dissect the genetic basis of quantitative traits. By subjecting a population to truncating selection for several generations and estimating the allele frequency differences between selected and nonselected populations using next-generation sequencing (NGS), the loci contributing to the selected trait may be identified. The role of different parameters, such as, the population size or the number of replicate populations has been examined in previous works. However, the influence of the selection regime, that is the strength of truncating selection during the experiment, remains little explored. Using whole genome, individual based forward simulations of E&R studies, we found that the power to identify the causative alleles may be maximized by gradually increasing the strength of truncating selection during the experiment. Notably, such an optimal selection regime comes at no or little additional cost in terms of sequencing effort and experimental time. Interestingly, we also found that a selection regime which optimizes the power to identify the causative loci is not necessarily identical to a regime that maximizes the phenotypic response. Finally, our simulations suggest that an E&R study with an optimized selection regime may have a higher power to identify the genetic basis of quantitative traits than a genome-wide association study, highlighting that E&R is a powerful approach for finding the loci underlying complex traits.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetic TechniquesModels, GeneticQuantitative Trait, HeritableSelection, GeneticAnimalsComputer SimulationDrosophila melanogasterevolve and resequenceexperimental evolutionforward simulationsGWASpopulation geneticsquantitative genetics

Identifiers

PMID31400203
PMCPMC6878953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.