Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genetic redundancy fuels polygenic adaptation in Drosophila

Open access
Barghi, Neda, Tobler, Raymond, Nolte, Viola, Jakšić, Ana Marija, Mallard, François, Otte, Kathrin Anna, Dolezal, Marlies, Taus, Thomas, Kofler, Robert, Schlötterer, Christian·2019·PLOS Biology

Abstract

The genetic architecture of adaptive traits is of key importance to predict evolutionary responses. Most adaptive traits are polygenic-i.e., result from selection on a large number of genetic loci-but most molecularly characterized traits have a simple genetic basis. This discrepancy is best explained by the difficulty in detecting small allele frequency changes (AFCs) across many contributing loci. To resolve this, we use laboratory natural selection to detect signatures for selective sweeps and polygenic adaptation. We exposed 10 replicates of a Drosophila simulans population to a new temperature regime and uncovered a polygenic architecture of an adaptive trait with high genetic redundancy among beneficial alleles. We observed convergent responses for several phenotypes-e.g., fitness, metabolic rate, and fat content-and a strong polygenic response (99 selected alleles; mean s = 0.059). However, each of these selected alleles increased in frequency only in a subset of the evolving replicates. We discerned different evolutionary paradigms based on the heterogeneous genomic patterns among replicates. Redundancy and quantitative trait (QT) paradigms fitted the experimental data better than simulations assuming independent selective sweeps. Our results show that natural D. simulans populations harbor a vast reservoir of adaptive variation facilitating rapid evolutionary responses using multiple alternative genetic pathways converging at a new phenotypic optimum. This key property of beneficial alleles requires the modification of testing strategies in natural populations beyond the search for convergence on the molecular level.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000128

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Barghi, N., Tobler, R., Nolte, V., Jakšić, A. M., Mallard, F., Otte, K. A., Dolezal, M., Taus, T., Kofler, R., & Schlötterer, C.
Venue
PLOS Biology
Published
2019-02-04
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
e3000128
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W2913676002
Cited by
301
References
8
FWCI
20.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

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.