Back

Distinct patterns of selective sweep and polygenic adaptation

Barghi, N.; Schloetterer, C.

2019-07-03 evolutionary biology
10.1101/691840 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The central paradigm of molecular population genetics is selective sweeps, where targets of selection have independent effects on the phenotype and quickly rise to fixation. In quantitative genetics, many loci contribute epistatically to adaptation and subtle frequency changes occur at many loci. Since both paradigms could result in a sweep-like genomic signature, additional criteria are needed to distinguish them. Using the framework of experimental evolution, we performed computer simulations to study the pattern of selected alleles under both paradigms. We identify several distinct patterns of selective sweeps and polygenic adaptation in populations of different sizes. These features could provide the foundation for development of quantitative approaches to differentiate the two paradigms.\n\nAuthors summaryThe selective sweep model assumes an independent frequency increase of favorable alleles and has been the basis of many tests for selection. While, polygenic adaptation is typically modelled by small frequency shifts in many loci. Recently, some theoretical and empirical work demonstrated that polygenic adaptation, similar to sweep, could also results in pronounced allele frequency changes. These results suggest that other distinct features need to be identified. Using computer simulations, we identified distinctive features for each paradigm that can be used to differentiate the sweep model from polygenic adaptation. Features such as allele frequency trajectories, time-series fitness, distribution of selected alleles on haplotypes, and parallelism among replicates can be used for development of suitable tests to distinguish between different adaptive architectures. These features provide the basis for theoretical modeling, design of selection experiments and data analysis.

Matching journals

The top 7 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.