What we're reading: The Y chromosome, climate change versus forests, and a postdoc's job description

Caught Reading
In the journals
Cortez, D., R. Marin, D. Toledo-Flores, L. Froidevaux, A. Liechti, P. D. Waters, F. Grützner, and H. Kaessmann. 2014. Origins and functional evolution of Y chromosomes across mammals. Nature 508:488–93. doi: 10.1038/nature13151.

Despite expression decreases in therians, Y/W genes show notable conservation of proto-sex chromosome expression patterns, although various Y genes evolved testis-specificities through differential regulatory decay. Thus, although some genes evolved novel functions through spatial/temporal expression shifts, most Y genes probably endured, at least initially, because of dosage constraints.

Schueler, S., W. Falk, J. Koskela, F. Lefèvre, M. Bozzano, J. Hubert, H. Kraigher, R. Longauer, and D. C. Olrik. 2014. Vulnerability of dynamic genetic conservation units of forest trees in Europe to climate change. Global Change Biology 20:1498–511. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12476.

Compared to the overall climate niche of the analysed target species populations at the warm and dry end of the species niche are underrepresented in the network. However, by 2100, target species in 33–65 %of conservation units, mostly located in southern Europe, will be at the limit or outside the species’ current climatic niche as demonstrated by favourabilities below required model sensitivities of 95%.

In the news
“… the take home message is that there is currently no definitive evidence one way or another about whether most results are false.”
“So in summary, my recommendations are: learn to turn your research outputs into papers, and learn how to produce research outputs in a short space of time; learn skills that are rare and in high demand; and learn how to take projects to completion.”
“As scientists, we like to think that we are measuring things accurately, and tend to be disturbed at the idea that we might be systematically biased in our measurements. So, the idea that we might systematically be underestimating the abilities of a large portion of our students is something most of us would find disturbing.”

Posted in linkfest | Leave a comment

What we're reading: Tradeoffs in a songbird pathogen, new coalescent models, and the value of museum collections

reading on the roof
In the journals
Williams PD, AP Dobson, KV Dhondt, DM Hawley, and AA Dhondt. 2014. Evidence of trade-offs shaping virulence evolution in an emerging wildlife pathogen. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1111/jeb.12379.

Relationships between pathogen traits are also investigated, with transmission and recovery rates being significantly negatively correlated, whereas transmission and virulence, measured as average eye lesion score over the course of infection, are positively correlated.

Tellier A, and C Lemaire. 2014. Coalescence 2.0: a multiple branching of recent theoretical developments and their applications. Molecular Ecology. doi: 10.1111/mec.12755.

We explain how these new models take into account various pervasive ecological and biological characteristics, life history traits or life cycles which were not accounted in previous theories such as 1) the skew in offspring production typical of marine species, 2) fast adapting microparasites (virus, bacteria and fungi) exhibiting large variation in population sizes during epidemics, 3) the peculiar life cycles of fungi and bacteria alternating sexual and asexual cycles, and 4) the high rates of extinction-recolonization in spatially structured populations.

In the news
“Institutions that successfully reduce false positives in their research output could then sell off their surplus permits to other institutions that have exceeded their allocation. This flexibility would create incentives for researchers to find innovative ways to reduce false positives.”
“I feel that as long as I am productive, as long as my peeps are doing well and they are productive, as long as the distress and discomfort to the animals is as low as I can get it, and they are not wasted, its OK not to use Every Bit Of Data.”
“Scientific collecting is important in many ways, and not just in describing and defining biodiversity.”
Because of course you want to start a script with this: require("wesanderson")
“Professors, then, worked 51 hours during the official workweek and then, in addition, put in ten hours over the weekend.”

Posted in linkfest | Leave a comment

Scanning the genome for local adaptation

2012.10.22 - Medicago truncatula
Medicago truncatula in its not-very-natural habitat, the greenhouse.

One of the most obvious and important applications of evolutionary genetics is in figuring out whether natural biological communities are going to be able to adapt to global climate change. The projected rate of climate change over then next century is unprecedented in the evolutionary history of most living things, and we need methods to rapidly assess the genetic capacity of natural and cultivated populations to evolve in response to warming.

Genome scans for loci that are locally adapted to climate provide one tool for that assessment. Unlike traditional quantitative genetics methods, a genome scan doesn’t require cultivating the species of interest in controlled conditions. Instead, genome-wide marker data from a sample of natural populations can be used to find genome regions that are probably important for adaptation to climate, and these can be assayed for variation in populations threatened by changing conditions.

Continue reading
Posted in adaptation, association genetics, genomics, next generation sequencing | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

What we're reading: Stick insects, Gulf of Mexico oysters, and how many peer reviewers it takes to change a lightbulb joke?

From the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary
In the journals
Comeault, A. a., V. Soria-Carrasco, Z. Gompert, T. E. Farkas, C. A. Buerkle, T. L. Parchman, and P. Nosil. 2014. Genome-wide association mapping of phenotypic traits subject to a range of intensities of natural selection in Timema cristinae. The American Naturalist. 183:711–727. doi: 10.1086/675497.

Here we quantitatively describe the genetic architecture of traits that are subject to known intensities of differential selection between host plant species in Timema cristinae stick insects.

Anderson, J. D., W. J. Karel, C. E. Mace, B. L. Bartram, and M. P. Hare. 2014. Spatial genetic features of eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica Gmelin) in the Gulf of Mexico: northward movement of a secondary contact zone. Ecology and Evolution. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1064.

Recent hydrological changes in the area of secondary contact may be promoting migration in areas that were previously inhospitable to eastern oysters, and observed differences in the timing of spawning may limit hybridization between populations. Comparison of these findings with the results of an earlier study of oysters in Texas suggests that the secondary contact zone has shifted approximately 27 km north, in as little as a 23-year span.

In the news
“Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you. This relationship is hurting me.”
“If you do have a paper that is going to get a lot attention I think it’s also fair to say that you now should be highly confident in your result prior to publication.”
“I cannot find any serious fault with this joke. Leeson is fully qualified to make it, and has done so carefully and thoroughly. The joke is funny and of comparable quality to jokes found in peer journals. I score it 3/10 and recommend rejection.”
“In short, no, good science does not REQUIRE replication.”
“Tired of generic mass produced palettes for your plots? Short of adding an owl and dressing up your plot in a bowler hat, here’s the most indie thing you can do to one. First round of palettes derived from the amazing Tumblr blog Wes Anderson Palettes.”

Posted in linkfest | 1 Comment

Identifying and quantifying fitness effects across loci

Rainbow spectrum reminds me of 70s logo design

Taking the site frequency spectrum to the next level.


The following guest post by Ethan Jewett is cross-posted from the is cross-posted from the CEHG blog at Stanford. Enjoy!
The degree to which similarities and differences among species are the result of natural selection, rather than genetic drift, is a major question in population genetics. Related questions include: what fraction of sites in the genome of a species are affected by selection? What is the distribution of the strength of selection across genomic sites, and how have selective pressures changed over time? To address these questions, we must be able to accurately identify sites in a genome that are under selection and quantify the selective pressures that act on them.
Difficulties with existing approaches for quantifying fitness effects
A recent paper in Trends in Genetics by David Lawrie and Dmitri Petrov (Lawrie and Petrov, 2014) provides intuition about the power of existing methods for identifying genomic regions affected by purifying selection and for quantifying the selective pressures at different sites. The paper proposes a new framework for quantifying the distribution of fitness effects across a genome. This new framework is a synthesis of two existing forms of analysis – comparative genomic analyses to identify genomic regions in which the level of divergence among two or more species is smaller than expected, and analyses of the distribution of the frequencies of polymorphisms (the site frequency spectrum, or SFS) within a single species (Figure 1). Using simulations and heuristic arguments, Lawrie and Petrov demonstrate that these two forms of analysis can be combined into a framework for quantifying selective pressures that has greater power to identify selected regions and to quantify selective strengths than either approach has on its own.
Continue reading

Posted in adaptation, genomics, population genetics, theory | 1 Comment

What we're reading: Polygenic mutation-selection balance, demographics of invading mice, and the U.S. consensus on climate change

Bookshelf spectrum 2.0 - mission accomplished!
In the journals
de Vladar HP, N Barton. 2014. Stability and response of polygenic traits to stabilizing selection and mutation. Genetics. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.159111.

The interplay between stabilizing selection and mutation leads to a sharp transition: alleles with effects smaller than a threshold value of 2√μ/S remain polymorphic, whereas those with larger effects are fixed.

Gray MM, D Wegmann, RJ Haasl, MA White, SI Gabriel, JB Searle, RJ Cuthbert, PG Ryan, and BA Payseur. 2014. Demographic history of a recent invasion of house mice on the isolated Island of Gough. Molecular Ecology. 23:1923–1939. doi: 10.1111/mec.12715.

Gough Island mice showed substantial reductions in mitochondrial and nuclear sequence variation and weak reductions in microsatellite diversity compared with Western European populations, consistent with a population bottleneck. Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) estimated that mice recently colonized Gough Island (~100 years ago) and experienced a 98% reduction in population size followed by a rapid expansion.

In the news
“While trying to bluff your way through a qualifying exam isn’t a good strategy, it’s also not going to harm anyone else. In other situations, though, failing to recognize and/or acknowledge what you do and do not know is really important, with the potential to cause harm.”
“In the fight for attention from researchers, there are winners and there are civets.”
“More than 60 percent of Americans in every state favor government-imposed limits on greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and power plants.”

Posted in linkfest | Leave a comment

Why we sign our peer reviews

A Lovely Signature, 1796
Last week I posted the results from a brief survey of our readers, asking whether they usually sign their peer reviews. In that small sample of evolutionary ecologists, the overwhelming majority said they review anonymously, though many participants seem to take things on a case-by-case basis. Participants who review anonymously were more likely to cite habit, and to say that they were concerned about the consequences that non-anonymous reviews might have for their relationships with colleagues.
I also asked participants to send in some more in-depth thoughts on the question of anonymous review, and lots of folks did. These are the responses from those who said they usually sign their reviews—you can find responses from folks who usually review anonymously here. I’ve done only minimal editing for clarity. Thanks to everyone who shared thoughts!
Bryan Carstens, Assistant Professor at the Ohio State University, in the Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology.
As a rule, I prefer signed reviews for two reasons. One, they are generally more thorough and thus more useful to the AE and the authors of the manuscript. In my role as the former, I have seen too many cases where people write a short anonymous review that heavily criticizes an aspect of the submitted paper in a less-than-judicious manner. Second, signed reviews are generally more impactful on the authors. I can think of at least two examples of papers that I have written that changed substantially due to a signed review from someone that I deeply respected, and therefore could not ignore the constructive criticism offered in the review.
In most cases I sign, but when I have not signed it was usually due to extenuating circumstances such as the case where I was reviewing a paper written by someone who was in the process of serving as an AE on one of my graduate student’s papers.
Continue reading

Posted in career, community, peer review, science publishing | 6 Comments

Why we don't sign our peer reviews

The Mask
Last week I posted the results from a brief survey of our readers, asking whether they usually sign their peer reviews. In that small sample of evolutionary ecologists, the overwhelming majority said they review anonymously, though many participants seem to take things on a case-by-case basis. Participants who review anonymously were more likely to cite habit, and to say that they were concerned about the consequences that non-anonymous reviews might have for their relationships with colleagues.
I also asked participants to send in some more in-depth thoughts on the question of anonymous review, and a number of folks did. These are the responses from those who said they usually review anonymously—you can find responses from folks who usually sign their reviews here. I’ve done only minimal editing for clarity. Thanks to everyone who shared thoughts!
Will Pearse, postdoc at the University of Minnesota, contributor at Phylo-Eco-Geo-Evo Journal Club:
I wrote an article with James Rosindell suggesting a new open peer review system where every aspect of peer review is completely open, yet paradoxically I rarely sign reviews. My concern is appearing sycophantic when I enjoy a paper, I’m actually not worried about more negative reviews because I’m always polite and constructive. I would only sign my review if I were recommending someone cite one of my papers, something I’m not often comfortable doing anyway. I’ve actually done an entirely open review [for Faculty of 1000] and I found the whole experience rather jarring; I wouldn’t have done it if I didn’t already like the software in question, and I think that could be unethical. Scott’s a nice guy and a good scientist; I’m not certain I would have been viewed very favourably being one of the first people to criticise the work of another in the open, despite the fact I think such a system has a number of benefits.
Continue reading

Posted in career, community, peer review, science publishing | 4 Comments

What we're reading: Coevolving diversity, gut microbiota and gas, and killing the phrase "next-generation sequencing"

about reading, books, ...
In the journals
Boots M., A. White, A. Best, and R. Bowers. 2014. How specificity and epidemiology drive the coevolution of static trait diversity in hosts and parasites. Evolution. doi: 10.1111/evo.12393

We examine theoretically how epidemiological feedbacks and the characteristics of the interaction between host types and parasites strains determine the coevolution of host–parasite diversity.

Manichanh C., A. Eck, E. Varela, J. Roca, J.C. Clemente, A. González, et al. 2014. Anal gas evacuation and colonic microbiota in patients with flatulence: effect of diet. Gut. 63(3):401-8. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303013.

When challenged with flatulogenic diet, patients’ microbiota developed instability in composition, exhibiting variations in the main phyla and reduction of microbial diversity, whereas healthy subjects’ microbiota were stable. Taxa from Bacteroides fragilis or Bilophila wadsworthia correlated with number of gas evacuations or volume of gas evacuated, respectively.

In the news
“I’ve developed a data scraper that gathers information on student dissertations, such as page length, year and month of graduation, major, and primary advisor.”
“I hate the phrase next-generation sequencing (NGS) with a passion. Here’s why …” [Plus addendum.]

Posted in linkfest | Leave a comment

Do we sign our peer reviews? Mostly, no.

Update, 24 November 2014: There’s been a renewed interest in this post, so now is as good a time as any to note that, in addition to this survey, I also posted written responses from folks who choose to sign their reviews and those who remain anonymous. I recommend reading them all!
Last week, inspired by discussions with my co-bloggers and a post by Terry McGlynn, I asked our readers to tell me whether they do peer review anonymously, and why. A total of 87 folks responded to a brief online survey, and here’s what they said: most of us review anonymously, and a lot of us do it to protect ourselves in interactions with senior colleagues.
First, the headline result: how many Molecular Ecologist readers review anonymously? Of the 87 survey participants, 82% (71) said that generally they do no sign their peer reviews.
PR_yes-no
But I also asked participants how many reviews they’d done in the last year, and how many of those were anonymous—and this revealed that those general statements aren’t ironclad.
Continue reading

Posted in community, peer review, science publishing | 11 Comments