Literature DB >> 25648189

The relative power of genome scans to detect local adaptation depends on sampling design and statistical method.

Katie E Lotterhos1, Michael C Whitlock.   

Abstract

Although genome scans have become a popular approach towards understanding the genetic basis of local adaptation, the field still does not have a firm grasp on how sampling design and demographic history affect the performance of genome scans on complex landscapes. To explore these issues, we compared 20 different sampling designs in equilibrium (i.e. island model and isolation by distance) and nonequilibrium (i.e. range expansion from one or two refugia) demographic histories in spatially heterogeneous environments. We simulated spatially complex landscapes, which allowed us to exploit local maxima and minima in the environment in 'pair' and 'transect' sampling strategies. We compared F(ST) outlier and genetic-environment association (GEA) methods for each of two approaches that control for population structure: with a covariance matrix or with latent factors. We show that while the relative power of two methods in the same category (F(ST) or GEA) depended largely on the number of individuals sampled, overall GEA tests had higher power in the island model and F(ST) had higher power under isolation by distance. In the refugia models, however, these methods varied in their power to detect local adaptation at weakly selected loci. At weakly selected loci, paired sampling designs had equal or higher power than transect or random designs to detect local adaptation. Our results can inform sampling designs for studies of local adaptation and have important implications for the interpretation of genome scans based on landscape data.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  adaptation; genome scans; landscape genetics; range expansion; sampling design; spatial statistics

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25648189     DOI: 10.1111/mec.13100

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  97 in total

1.  Population-genomic inference of the strength and timing of selection against gene flow.

Authors:  Simon Aeschbacher; Jessica P Selby; John H Willis; Graham Coop
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Genetic architecture of a body colour cline in Drosophila americana.

Authors:  Lisa L Sramkoski; Wesley N McLaughlin; Arielle M Cooley; David C Yuan; Alisha John; Patricia J Wittkopp
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 6.185

3.  Introduction to Population Genomics Methods.

Authors:  Thibault Leroy; Quentin Rougemont
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

4.  Fine-scale genetic structure due to adaptive divergence among microhabitats.

Authors:  D N Wagner; T Z Baris; D I Dayan; X Du; M F Oleksiak; D L Crawford
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.821

5.  skelesim: an extensible, general framework for population genetic simulation in R.

Authors:  Christian M Parobek; Frederick I Archer; Michelle E DePrenger-Levin; Sean M Hoban; Libby Liggins; Allan E Strand
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 7.090

6.  Local adaptation (mostly) remains local: reassessing environmental associations of climate-related candidate SNPs in Arabidopsis halleri.

Authors:  C Rellstab; M C Fischer; S Zoller; R Graf; A Tedder; K K Shimizu; A Widmer; R Holderegger; F Gugerli
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 3.821

7.  Stochastic processes drive rapid genomic divergence during experimental range expansions.

Authors:  Christopher Weiss-Lehman; Silas Tittes; Nolan C Kane; Ruth A Hufbauer; Brett A Melbourne
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Measuring Genetic Differentiation from Pool-seq Data.

Authors:  Valentin Hivert; Raphaël Leblois; Eric J Petit; Mathieu Gautier; Renaud Vitalis
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Emerging Frontiers in the Study of Molecular Evolution.

Authors:  David A Liberles; Belinda Chang; Kerry Geiler-Samerotte; Aaron Goldman; Jody Hey; Betül Kaçar; Michelle Meyer; William Murphy; David Posada; Andrew Storfer
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 10.  Finding the Genomic Basis of Local Adaptation: Pitfalls, Practical Solutions, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Sean Hoban; Joanna L Kelley; Katie E Lotterhos; Michael F Antolin; Gideon Bradburd; David B Lowry; Mary L Poss; Laura K Reed; Andrew Storfer; Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 3.926

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.