{"title":"Unifying approaches from statistical genetics and phylogenetics for mapping phenotypes in structured populations.","authors":"Joshua G Schraiber, Michael D Edge, Matt Pennell","doi":"10.1371/journal.pbio.3002847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In both statistical genetics and phylogenetics, a major goal is to identify correlations between genetic loci or other aspects of the phenotype or environment and a focal trait. In these 2 fields, there are sophisticated but disparate statistical traditions aimed at these tasks. The disconnect between their respective approaches is becoming untenable as questions in medicine, conservation biology, and evolutionary biology increasingly rely on integrating data from within and among species, and once-clear conceptual divisions are becoming increasingly blurred. To help bridge this divide, we lay out a general model describing the covariance between the genetic contributions to the quantitative phenotypes of different individuals. Taking this approach shows that standard models in both statistical genetics (e.g., genome-wide association studies; GWAS) and phylogenetic comparative biology (e.g., phylogenetic regression) can be interpreted as special cases of this more general quantitative-genetic model. The fact that these models share the same core architecture means that we can build a unified understanding of the strengths and limitations of different methods for controlling for genetic structure when testing for associations. We develop intuition for why and when spurious correlations may occur analytically and conduct population-genetic and phylogenetic simulations of quantitative traits. The structural similarity of problems in statistical genetics and phylogenetics enables us to take methodological advances from one field and apply them in the other. We demonstrate by showing how a standard GWAS technique-including both the genetic relatedness matrix (GRM) as well as its leading eigenvectors, corresponding to the principal components of the genotype matrix, in a regression model-can mitigate spurious correlations in phylogenetic analyses. As a case study, we re-examine an analysis testing for coevolution of expression levels between genes across a fungal phylogeny and show that including eigenvectors of the covariance matrix as covariates decreases the false positive rate while simultaneously increasing the true positive rate. More generally, this work provides a foundation for more integrative approaches for understanding the genetic architecture of phenotypes and how evolutionary processes shape it.</p>","PeriodicalId":49001,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Biology","volume":"22 10","pages":"e3002847"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11493298/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002847","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In both statistical genetics and phylogenetics, a major goal is to identify correlations between genetic loci or other aspects of the phenotype or environment and a focal trait. In these 2 fields, there are sophisticated but disparate statistical traditions aimed at these tasks. The disconnect between their respective approaches is becoming untenable as questions in medicine, conservation biology, and evolutionary biology increasingly rely on integrating data from within and among species, and once-clear conceptual divisions are becoming increasingly blurred. To help bridge this divide, we lay out a general model describing the covariance between the genetic contributions to the quantitative phenotypes of different individuals. Taking this approach shows that standard models in both statistical genetics (e.g., genome-wide association studies; GWAS) and phylogenetic comparative biology (e.g., phylogenetic regression) can be interpreted as special cases of this more general quantitative-genetic model. The fact that these models share the same core architecture means that we can build a unified understanding of the strengths and limitations of different methods for controlling for genetic structure when testing for associations. We develop intuition for why and when spurious correlations may occur analytically and conduct population-genetic and phylogenetic simulations of quantitative traits. The structural similarity of problems in statistical genetics and phylogenetics enables us to take methodological advances from one field and apply them in the other. We demonstrate by showing how a standard GWAS technique-including both the genetic relatedness matrix (GRM) as well as its leading eigenvectors, corresponding to the principal components of the genotype matrix, in a regression model-can mitigate spurious correlations in phylogenetic analyses. As a case study, we re-examine an analysis testing for coevolution of expression levels between genes across a fungal phylogeny and show that including eigenvectors of the covariance matrix as covariates decreases the false positive rate while simultaneously increasing the true positive rate. More generally, this work provides a foundation for more integrative approaches for understanding the genetic architecture of phenotypes and how evolutionary processes shape it.
期刊介绍:
PLOS Biology is the flagship journal of the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and focuses on publishing groundbreaking and relevant research in all areas of biological science. The journal features works at various scales, ranging from molecules to ecosystems, and also encourages interdisciplinary studies. PLOS Biology publishes articles that demonstrate exceptional significance, originality, and relevance, with a high standard of scientific rigor in methodology, reporting, and conclusions.
The journal aims to advance science and serve the research community by transforming research communication to align with the research process. It offers evolving article types and policies that empower authors to share the complete story behind their scientific findings with a diverse global audience of researchers, educators, policymakers, patient advocacy groups, and the general public.
PLOS Biology, along with other PLOS journals, is widely indexed by major services such as Crossref, Dimensions, DOAJ, Google Scholar, PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, PLOS Biology is indexed by various other services including AGRICOLA, Biological Abstracts, BIOSYS Previews, CABI CAB Abstracts, CABI Global Health, CAPES, CAS, CNKI, Embase, Journal Guide, MEDLINE, and Zoological Record, ensuring that the research content is easily accessible and discoverable by a wide range of audiences.