Detecting Polygenic Evolution: Problems, Pitfalls, and Promises

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 155-164

  Wellenreuther, Maren ^a,b   Hansson, Bengt ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE FOR PLANT AND FOOD RESEARCH LIMITED   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

DNA mapping; Functional analysis; Phenotypic evolution; Population genomics; Quantitative genetics

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; GENE LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; MODEL; MULTIFACTORIAL INHERITANCE; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; NONHUMAN; ORGANISMS; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; REVIEW; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; ANIMAL; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; PHENOTYPE;

EID: 84958748303     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: 13624555     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2015.12.004     Document Type: Review

References (94)

1. Lewontin R.C. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change 1974, Columbia University Press.
2. Fisher R.A. On the correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. Earth Sci. 1918, 52:399-433.
3. Fisher R. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection 1930, Clarendon.
4. Roff D.A. A centennial celebration for quantitative genetics. Evolution 2007, 61:1017-1032.
5. Falconer D.S., Mackay T.F.C. Introduction To Quantitative Genetics 1996, Longmans Green.
6. Pritchard J.K., Di Rienzo A. Adaptation - not by sweeps alone. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11:665-667.
7. Rockman M.V. The QTN program and the alleles that matter for evolution: all that's gold does not glitter. Evolution 2011, 66:1-17.
8. Bell G. The oligogenic view of adaptation. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2009, 74:139-144.
9. Melchinger A.E., et al. Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping using different testers and independent population samples in maize reveals low power of QTL detection and large bias in estimates of QTL effects. Genetics 1998, 149:383-403.
10. Göring H.H., et al. Large upward bias in estimation of locus-specific effects from genomewide scans. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2001, 69:1357-1369.
11. Martin S.H., Jiggins C.D. Genomic studies of adaptation in natural populations 2013, 2013:a0024613. Els.
12. Gibson G. Rare and common variants: twenty arguments. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2012, 13:135-145.
13. Mackay T.F.C., et al. The genetics of quantitative traits: challenges and prospects. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2009, 10:565-577.
14. Barrett R.D.H., Hoekstra H.E. Molecular spandrels: tests of adaptation at the genetic level. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12:767-780.
15. Ellegren H. Genome sequencing and population genomics in non-model organisms. TREE 2014, 29:51-63.
16. Manalil S. An analysis of polygenic herbicide resistance evolution and its management based on a population genetics approach. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2015, 16:104-111.
17. Mokry F., et al. Genome-wide association study for backfat thickness in Canchim beef cattle using Random Forest approach. BMC Genet. 2013, 14:47.
18. Ahmed U., et al. Biomarkers of early stage osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and musculoskeletal health. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5:9259.
19. Bierne N., et al. The coupling hypothesis: why genome scans may fail to map local adaptation genes. Mol. Ecol. 2011, 20:2044-2072.
20. Le Corre V., Kremer A. The genetic differentiation at quantitative trait loci under local adaptation. Mol. Ecol. 2012, 21:1548-1566.
21. Lotterhos K.E., Whitlock M.C. The relative power of genome scans to detect local adaptation depends on sampling design and statistical method. Mol. Ecol. 2015, 24:1031-1046.
22. Sætre G.P. Genome scans and elusive candidate genes: detecting the variation that matters for speciation. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23:4677-4678.
23. Slate J. Quantitative trait locus mapping in natural populations: progress, caveats and future directions. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14:363-380.
24. Slate J., et al. Genome mapping in intensively studied wild vertebrate populations. Trends Genet. 2010, 26:275-284.
25. Wood A.R., et al. Defining the role of common variation in the genomic and biological architecture of adult human height. Nat. Genet. 2014, 46:1173-1186.
26. Orr H. The genetic theory of adaptation: A brief history. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005, 6:119-127.
27. Xu S. Theoretical basis of the Beavis effect. Genetics 2003, 165:2259-2268.
28. Slate J. From beavis to beak color: a simulation study to examine how much qtl mapping can reveal about the genetic architecture of quantitative traits. Evolution 2013, 67:1251-1262.
29. Kraft P. Curses - winner's and otherwise - in genetic epidemiology. Epidemiology 2008, 19:649-651.
30. Alhaddad H., et al. Extent of linkage disequilibrium in the domestic cat, Felis silvestris catus, and its breeds. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e53537.
31. Porto-Neto L.R., et al. The extent of linkage disequilibrium in beef cattle breeds using high-density SNP genotypes. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2014, 46:22.
32. Luikart G., et al. The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2003, 4:981-994.
33. Hancock A.M., et al. Adaptation to climate across the Arabidopsis thaliana genome. Science 2011, 334:83-86.
34. Coop G., et al. Using environmental correlations to identify loci underlying local adaptation. Genetics 2010, 185:1411-1423.
35. Nielsen R., et al. A scan for positively selected genes in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. PLos Biol. 2005, 3:e170.
36. Axelsson E., et al. The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet. Nature 2013, 495:360-364.
37. Lotterhos K.E., Whitlock M.C. Evaluation of demographic history and neutral parameterization on the performance of FST outlier tests. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23:2178-2192.
38. Charlesworth B., et al. The effects of local selection, balanced polymorphism and background selection on equilibrium patterns of genetic diversity in subdivided populations. Genet. Res. 1997, 70:155-174.
39. Excoffier L., et al. Detecting loci under selection in a hierarchically structured population. Heredity 2009, 103:285-298.
40. Foll M., Gaggiotti O. A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: a Bayesian perspective. Genetics 2008, 180:977-993.
41. Barrett R.D.H., Schluter D. Adaptation from standing genetic variation. TREE 2008, 23:39-44.
42. Pardo-Diaz C., et al. Towards the identification of the loci of adaptive evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2015, 6:445-464.
43. Martin A., Orgogozo V. The loci of repeated evolution: a catalog of genetic hotspots of phenotypic variation. Evolution 2013, 67:1235-1250.
44. Beavis W.D. QTL analyses: power, precision and accuracy. Molecular Dissection of Complex Traits 1997, 145-162. CRC Press. A.H. Paterson (Ed.).
45. Ariyadasa R., et al. A sequence-ready physical map of barley anchored genetically by two million single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Plant Physiol. 2014, 164:412-423.
46. Jones F.C., et al. The genomic basis of adaptive evolution in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 2012, 484:55-61.
47. Ekblom R., Galindo J. Applications of next generation sequencing in molecular ecology of non-model organisms. Heredity 2011, 107:1-15.
48. Kawakami T., et al. A high-density linkage map enables a second-generation collared flycatcher genome assembly and reveals the patterns of avian recombination rate variation and chromosomal evolution. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23:4035-4058.
49. Poissant J., et al. Genetic linkage map of a wild genome: genomic structure, recombination and sexual dimorphism in bighorn sheep. BMC Genomics 2010, 11:524.
50. Gompert Z., et al. Experimental evidence for ecological selection on genome variation in the wild. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17:369-379.
51. Soria-Carrasco V., et al. Stick insect genomes reveal natural selection's role in parallel speciation. Science 2014, 344:738-742.
52. Houle D. Numbering the hairs on our heads: the shared challenge and promise of phenomics. PNAS 2010, 107:1793-1799.
53. Houle D., et al. Automated measurement of Drosophila wings. BMV Evol. Biol. 2003, 3:25.
54. Pallares L.F., et al. Use of a natural hybrid zone for genomewide association mapping of craniofacial traits in the house mouse. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23:5756-5770.
55. Frentiu F.D., et al. Pedigree-free animal models: the relatedness matrix reloaded. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 2008, 275:639-647.
56. Hill W., Weir B. Variation in actual relationship as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and linkage. Genet. Res. 2011, 93:47-64.
57. Robinson M.R., et al. Partitioning of genetic variation across the genome using multimarker methods in a wild bird population. Mol. Ecol. 2013, 22:3963-3980.
58. Bérénos C., et al. Estimating quantitative genetic parameters in wild populations: a comparison of pedigree and genomic approaches. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23:3434-3451.
59. Yang J., et al. Genome partitioning of genetic variation for complex traits using common SNPs. Nat. Gen. 2011, 43:519-525.
60. Santure A.W., et al. Replicated analysis of the genetic architecture of quantitative traits in two wild great tit populations. Mol. Ecol. 2015, Published online December 10, 2015. 10.1111/mec.13452.
61. Meuwissen T., Goddard M. Accurate prediction of genetic values for complex traits by whole-genome resequencing. Genetics 2010, 185:623-631.
62. VanRaden P. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91:4414-4423.
63. Zhang Z., et al. Best linear unbiased prediction of genomic breeding values using a trait-specific marker-derived relationship matrix. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e12648.
64. de los Campos G., et al. Whole genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics 2012, 193:327-345.
65. Le Corre V., Kremer A. Genetic variability at neutral markers, quantitative trait loci and trait in a subdivided population under selection. Genetics 2003, 164:1205-1219.
66. Travisano M., Shaw R.G. Lost in the map. Evolution 2013, 67:305-314.
67. Savolainen O., et al. Ecological genomics of local adaptation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2013, 14:807-820.
68. Steiner C.C., et al. Adaptive variation in beach mice produced by two interacting pigmentation genes. PLos Biol. 2007, 5:e219.
69. Johnston S.E., et al. Life history trade-offs at a single locus maintain sexually selected genetic variation. Nature 2013, 502:93-95.
70. Barson N.J., et al. Sex-dependent dominance at a single locus maintains variation in age at maturity in salmon. Nature 2015, 528:405-408.
71. Butlin R.K., et al. The effects of a chromosomal inversion on adult size and male mating success in the seaweed fly Coelopa frigida. Heredity 1982, 49:51-62.
72. Oneal E., et al. Divergent population structure and climate associations of a chromosomal inversion polymorphism across the Mimulus guttatus species complex. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23:2844-2860.
73. Huynh L.Y., et al. Chromosome-wide linkage disequilibrium caused by an inversion polymorphism in the white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). Heredity 2011, 106:537-546.
74. Rice W.R. Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 1984, 735-742.
75. Wellenreuther M., et al. Sexual selection and genetic colour polymorphisms in animals. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23:5398-5414.
76. Hirschhorn J.N., Daly M.J. Genome-wide association studies for common diseases and complex traits. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005, 6:95-108.
77. Johnston S., et al. Horn type and horn length genes map to the same chromosomal region in Soay sheep. Heredity 2010, 104:196-205.
78. Johnston S.E., et al. Genome-wide association mapping identifies the genetic basis of discrete and quantitative variation in sexual weaponry in a wild sheep population. Mol. Ecol. 2011, 20:2555-2566.
79. Rogers S.M., Bernatchez L. FAST-TRACK: Integrating QTL mapping and genome scans towards the characterization of candidate loci under parallel selection in the lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14:351-361.
80. Laporte M., et al. RAD-QTL mapping reveals both genome-level parallelism and different genetic architecture underlying the evolution of body shape in lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) species pairs. G3 2015, 5:1481-1491.
81. Pavey S.A., et al. RAD sequencing highlights polygenic discrimination of habitat ecotypes in the panmictic American eel. Curr. Biol. 2015, 25:1666-1671.
82. Zhou X., Stephens M. Genome-wide efficient mixed-model analysis for association studies. Nat. Genet. 2012, 44:821-824.
83. Speed D., et al. Response to Lee et al.: SNP-based heritability analysis with dense data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2013, 93:1155.
84. Furlotte N.A., et al. Quantifying the uncertainty in heritability. J. Hum. Genet. 2014, 59:269-275.
85. Zhou X., Stephens M. Efficient multivariate linear mixed model algorithms for genome-wide association studies. Nat. Methods 2014, 11:407-409.
86. Zhou X., et al. Polygenic modeling with Bayesian sparse linear mixed models. PLos Genet. 2013, 9:e1003264.
87. Perry G.H., et al. Adaptive, convergent origins of the pygmy phenotype in African rainforest hunter-gatherers. PNAS 2014, 111:E3596-E3603.
88. Yang J., et al. Advantages and pitfalls in the application of mixed-model association methods. Nat. Genet. 2014, 46:100-106.
89. Zamani N., et al. Unsupervised genome-wide recognition of local relationship patterns. BMC Genomics 2013, 14:347.
90. Poelstra J.W., et al. The genomic landscape underlying phenotypic integrity in the face of gene flow in crows. Science 2014, 344:1410-1414.
91. Stephan J., et al. A random forest approach to capture genetic effects in the presence of population structure. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6:7432.
92. Liaw A., Wiener M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R. News 2002, 2:18-22.
93. Brieuc M.S.O., et al. Integration of Random Forest with population-based outlier analyses provides insight on the genomic basis and evolution of run timing in Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Mol. Ecol. 2015, 24:2729-2746.
94. Laporte M., et al. RAD-sequencing reveals within-generation polygenic selection in response to anthropogenic organic and metal contamination in North Atlantic Eels. Mol. Ecol. 2016, 25:219-237.