Back

Steep logarithmic increase of genetic variation in natural Arabidopsis thaliana accessions across geographic scales

Hesen, V.; Boele, Y.; Holmer, R.; Boesten, R.; Wijfjes, R.; Aarts, M. G. M.; van der Putten, W. H.; Scheres, B.; Willemsen, V.

2024-04-29 genetics
10.1101/2024.04.26.591275 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Arabidopsis thalianas large native range across Eurasia and display of considerable genetic variation is key to its increasing use in eco-evolutionary studies. The structure and amount of this genetic variation has been studied on various geographic scales. On a continental scale, the genetic variation was postulated to follow an isolation by distance model, implying less genetic variation at smaller geographic distances. However, recent studies showed that the genetic variation is already high on small geographic scales, yet direct comparisons of the genetic variation across different geographic scales are rare. Here, we present a new local diversity panel covering 19 km2 with accessions of the Veluwe, the Netherlands. We compared the genetic variation of this local diversity panel to a national and a continental A. thaliana diversity panel. Direct comparison of these three geographic scales showed that local accessions harbour already 41.8% of the genetic variation found on a continental scale despite the substantial difference in geographic surface area covered. Moreover, a rapidly ascending logarithmic relationship between genetic and geographic distances was observed at continental, national and local scale and thus irrespective of the geographic scale considered. The high level of local genetic variation reported here poses new questions on which evolutionary forces are driving and maintaining this, and how much this constrains experimental design when using local A. thaliana populations in future eco-evolutionary studies.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.