The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype–environment associations
Open accessAbstract
Identifying adaptive loci can provide insight into the mechanisms underlying local adaptation. Genotype–environment association ( GEA ) methods, which identify these loci based on correlations between genetic and environmental data, are particularly promising. Univariate methods have dominated GEA , despite the high dimensional nature of genotype and environment. Multivariate methods, which analyse many loci simultaneously, may be better suited to these data as they consider how sets of markers covary in response to environment. These methods may also be more effective at detecting adaptive processes that result in weak, multilocus signatures. Here, we evaluate four multivariate methods and five univariate and differentiation‐based approaches, using published simulations of multilocus selection. We found that Random Forest performed poorly for GEA . Univariate GEA s performed better, but had low detection rates for loci under weak selection. Constrained ordinations, particularly redundancy analysis ( RDA ), showed a superior combination of low false‐positive and high true‐positive rates across all levels of selection. These results were robust across the demographic histories, sampling designs, sample sizes and weak population structure tested here. The value of combining detections from different methods was variable and depended on the study goals and knowledge of the drivers of selection. Re‐analysis of genomic data from grey wolves highlighted the unique, covarying sets of adaptive loci that could be identified using RDA . Although additional testing is needed, this study indicates that RDA is an effective means of detecting adaptation, including signatures of weak, multilocus selection, providing a powerful tool for investigating the genetic basis of local adaptation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions
Hoban, S., Kelley, J. L., Lotterhos, K. E., Antolin, M. F., Bradburd, G., Lowry, D. B., Poss, M. L., Reed, L. K., Storfer, A., & Whitlock, M. C. (2016) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/688018 · Cited by 876 · cited 2×
“Multivariate and machine learning genotype-environment association (GEA) methods have been noted for their ability to detect multilocus selection (Rellstab et al. 2015; Hoban et al. 2016), although there has been no controlled assessment of the effectiveness of these methods in 380 detecting multilocus selection to da…”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
How genomics can help biodiversity conservation
Theissinger, K., Fernandes, C., Formenti, G., Bista, I., Berg, P. R., Bleidorn, C., Bombarely, A., Crottini, A., Gallo, G. R., Godoy, J. A., et al. (2023) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2023.01.005 · Cited by 401
The Exciting Potential and Remaining Uncertainties of Genetic Rescue
Bell, D. A., Robinson, Z. L., Funk, W. C., Fitzpatrick, S. W., Allendorf, F. W., Tallmon, D. A., & Whiteley, A. R. (2019) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.06.006 · Cited by 305
Conservation and the Genomics of Populations
Allendorf, F. W., Funk, W. C., Aitken, S. N., Byrne, M., Luikart, G., & Antunes, A. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198856566.001.0001 · Cited by 207
Purging and accumulation of genetic load in conservation
Dussex, N., Morales, H. E., Grossen, C., Dalén, L., & van Oosterhout, C. (2023) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2023.05.008 · Cited by 193
Metadata
- Authors
- Forester, B. R., Lasky, J. R., Wagner, H. H., & Urban, D. L.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-04-23
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2215-2233
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2797449804
- Cited by
- 651
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 26.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype–environment associations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mec.14584
- The paper
- Forester, B. R., Lasky, J. R., Wagner, H. H., & Urban, D. L. (2018). Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype–environment associations. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14584
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.