Back

Integration of publicly available datasets reveals pesticide-associated genetic variation in a wild non-target animal

Scholier, T.; Guignard, D.; Kosnik, M.

2026-10-08 pharmacology and toxicology
10.1101/2025.08.20.671246 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Pesticide use is ubiquitous. While pesticide resistance in target species such as insects is a well-known phenomenon, it is less known how pesticide exposures affect the genetics of non-target species. Here, we demonstrate the research value of integrating existing datasets to study the relationship between chemicals and biodiversity from the genetics perspective by analyzing spatial pesticide concentration data and genetic data from Europe that were not initially generated for toxicological purposes. Specifically, we found associations between environmental pesticide concentrations and genetic variation (i.e., single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs) in a non-target species, the wild boar. Gene Ontology (GO) terms and biological signaling pathways related to nervous system function were overrepresented for the impacted genes, especially for insecticides and fungicides. Further, we found that external studies characterizing the molecular mechanisms of these pesticides revealed the same pesticide - GO relationships as those observed in our analysis. Our results show that pesticide-induced genetic changes may not be constrained to target species but may also have an impact on the long-term viability of other wildlife populations. We therefore encourage further research into this area and collaboration across disciplines to develop more comprehensive designated datasets for such analyses. This finding also urges the consideration and inclusion of chemical exposure into conservation protection strategies and greater consideration of genetic impacts from chemicals in environmental risk assessment.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.