Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41793071›Full record

ArticleGenetics2026

Strong amplification of quantitative genetic variation under a balance between mutation and fluctuating stabilizing selection.

Jason Bertram, Zahra Shafiei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Jason BertramDepartment of Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, London N6A 3K7  Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5374-6912
Zahra ShafieiDepartment of Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, London N6A 3K7  Canada.

Funding

NSERC 2024-05237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The observation of high heritability in most quantitative traits has been a long-standing puzzle. There is a general consensus that simple models of quantitative genetic variation, which are mostly founded on the assumption of mutation-selection balance in a constant environment, have failed to explain high heritability. To make matters worse, the reasons for failure are unknown, leaving little to guide future model developments. Here we revisit this puzzle by taking the canonical Latter-Bulmer (LB) model and relaxing the assumption of perfect environmental stasis. Instead we assume that the trait optimum changes slowly but steadily in a stochastic manner, similar to models used for phylogenetic comparative methods. We show that our model behaves qualitatively differently to its stationary optimum counterpart even though the optimum only changes slowly. This is the result of a feedback between the adaptation rate and selection coefficient fluctuations. The heritability predictions resulting from this feedback are more consistent with observations and also less sensitive to evolutionary parameters than the classical LB model. We derive a simple formula to predict genetic variation in our model which helps to explain some of our counter-intuitive results and which should be useful for understanding the potential influence of fluctuations in future work. Since the feedback driving our results should also occur in more complex models e.g. with multiple traits, we argue that environmental change has been an essential biological ingredient missing in most previous mutation-selection balance models of quantitative trait heritability.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationModels, GeneticMutationQuantitative Trait, HeritableSelection, GeneticEvolution, Molecularfluctuating environmentsmoving-optimum modelsmutation–selection balance

Identifiers

PMID41793071
PMCPMC13147527

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.