ArticlePLoS genetics2025
A method for identifying local adaptation in structured populations.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Species occupy diverse, heterogeneous environments, which expose populations to spatially varied selective pressures. Populations in different environments can diverge due to local adaptation. However, neutral evolution can also drive population divergence. Thus, testing for local adaptation requires a neutral baseline for population differentiation. The classical QST-FST comparison was developed for this purpose. Yet, QST-FST frequently fails to account for the complexities of population structure because the theory underlying this comparison assumes that all subpopulations are equally related, resulting in inflated false positive rates in metapopulations that deviate from the island model. To address this limitation we use estimates of between- and within-population relatedness to model population structure. Using those relatedness matrices, we infer the between- and within-population ancestral additive genetic variances under a mixed-effects model. Under neutrality, these inferred variances are expected to be equal. We propose here a test to detect selection based on the comparison of these two estimates of the ancestral variance and we compare its performance with earlier solutions. We find our method is well calibrated across various population structures and has high power to detect adaptive divergence.
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.