Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2025

Heuristic Mining of Hierarchical Genotypes and Accessory Genome Loci in Bacterial Populations
Published on: December 7, 2021
The accuracy of predicting maladaptation to new environments with genomic data
Brandon M Lind1, Katie E Lotterhos1
1Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Northeastern University Marine Science Center, Nahant, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract:
Rapid environmental change poses unprecedented challenges to species persistence. To understand the extent that continued change could have, genomic offset methods have been used to forecast maladaptation of natural populations to future environmental change. However, while their use has become increasingly common, little is known regarding their predictive performance across a wide array of realistic and challenging scenarios. Here, we evaluate the performance of currently available offset methods (gradientForest, the Risk-Of-Non-Adaptedness, redundancy analysis with and without structure correction and LFMM2) using an extensive set of simulated data sets that vary demography, adaptive architecture and the number and spatial patterns of adaptive environments. For each data set, we train models using either all, adaptive or neutral marker sets and evaluate performance using in silico common gardens by correlating known fitness with projected offset. Using over 4,849,600 of such evaluations, we find that (1) method performance is largely due to the degree of local adaptation across the metapopulation (LA), (2) adaptive marker sets provide minimal performance advantages, (3) performance within the species range is variable across gardens and declines when offset models are trained using additional non-adaptive environments and (4) despite (1) performance declines more rapidly in globally novel climates (i.e. a climate without an analogue within the species range) for metapopulations with greater LA than lesser LA. We discuss the implications of these results for management, assisted gene flow and assisted migration.
More Related Videos
11:35Screening for Functional Non-coding Genetic Variants Using Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay EMSA and DNA-affinity Precipitation Assay DAPA
Published on: August 21, 2016
04:41Mapping Alzheimer's Disease Variants to Their Target Genes Using Computational Analysis of Chromatin Configuration
Published on: January 9, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons
Genetic Drift
Genetic Screens
Forward genetic screens
Forward or “classical” genetic screens involve creating random mutations in an organism’s DNA using radiation, mutagens, or insertion of additional bases, which...
Background and Environment Affect Phenotype
An example of how genetic background affects phenotype can be seen in horses. The Extension gene in horses is responsible for their coat color. A wild-type gene (EE) produces black pigment in the coat, while a mutant gene (ee) produces red pigment. A...
Mismatch Repair
The Mutator Protein Family Plays a Key Role in DNA Mismatch Repair
The human genome has more than 3 billion base pairs of DNA per cell. Prior to cell division, that vast amount of genetic...
Genome Size and the Evolution of New Genes