Cited by 300Evolution and Genetic DynamicsGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Population-Based Resequencing of Experimentally Evolved Populations Reveals the Genetic Basis of Body Size Variation in Drosophila melanogaster

Open access
Turner, Thomas L., Stewart, Andrew D., Fields, Andrew T., Rice, William R., Tarone, Aaron M.·2011·PLoS Genetics

Abstract

Body size is a classic quantitative trait with evolutionarily significant variation within many species. Locating the alleles responsible for this variation would help understand the maintenance of variation in body size in particular, as well as quantitative traits in general. However, successful genome-wide association of genotype and phenotype may require very large sample sizes if alleles have low population frequencies or modest effects. As a complementary approach, we propose that population-based resequencing of experimentally evolved populations allows for considerable power to map functional variation. Here, we use this technique to investigate the genetic basis of natural variation in body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Significant differentiation of hundreds of loci in replicate selection populations supports the hypothesis that the genetic basis of body size variation is very polygenic in D. melanogaster. Significantly differentiated variants are limited to single genes at some loci, allowing precise hypotheses to be formed regarding causal polymorphisms, while other significant regions are large and contain many genes. By using significantly associated polymorphisms as a priori candidates in follow-up studies, these data are expected to provide considerable power to determine the genetic basis of natural variation in body size.

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.pgen.1001336

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Re-sequencing of evolved outbred Drosophila melanogaster populations provides strong support for selection on thousands of variants being responsible for changes in body size and fecundity.

    “re-sequencing of evolved outbred populations of Drosophila melanogaster has provided strong support for selection on thousands of variants being responsible for changes in the highly complex traits of body size and fecundity97,98.”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [98]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]Wright S 1977 Artificial Selection with Insects. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations Volume 3 Experimental Results and Evolutionary Directions Chicago University of Chicago Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turner, T. L., Stewart, A. D., Fields, A. T., Rice, W. R., & Tarone, A. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
Corresponding author
Turner, Thomas L.
Venue
PLoS Genetics
Published
2011-03-17
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
e1001336
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
OpenAlex
W2036620956
Cited by
297
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 20
FWCI
12.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Texas AgriLife Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD057974)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
body size variation, Drosophila melanogaster, experimental evolution, quantitative trait loci, polygenic inheritance, natural genetic variation, selection signatures, genome-wide association study
MeSH terms
Alleles, Animals, Chromosome Mapping, Drosophila melanogaster, Female, Gene Frequency, Genetics, Population, Genotype, Male, Phenotype, Polymorphism, Genetic, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Evolution, Molecular, Body Size, Genome-Wide Association Study

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