Explore the vast range of titles available.

Specialism is widespread in nature, generating and maintaining diversity, but recent work has demonstrated that generalists can be equally fit as specialists in some shared environments. This no-cost generalism challenges the maxim that ‘the jack of all trades is the master of none’, and requires evolutionary genetic mechanisms explaining the existence of specialism and no-cost generalism, and the persistence of specialism in the face of selection for generalism. Examining three well-described mechanisms with respect to epistasis and pleiotropy indicates that sign (or antagonistic) pleiotropy without epistasis cannot explain no-cost generalism and that magnitude pleiotropy without epistasis (including directional selection and mutation accumulation) cannot explain the persistence of specialism. However, pleiotropy with epistasis can explain all. Furthermore, epistatic pleiotropy may allow past habitat use to influence future use of novel environments, thereby affecting disease emergence and populations' responses to habitat change.

80 I. 80 II. 81 III. 83 IV. 83 84 References 84 SUMMARY: Floral traits often show correlated variation, both within and across species. One explanation for this pattern of floral integration is that different elements of floral phenotypes are controlled by the same genes, that is, that the genetic architecture is pleiotropic. Recent studies from a range of model systems suggest that the pleiotropy is common among the loci responsible for floral divergence. Moreover, the effects of allelic substitutions at these loci are overwhelmingly aligned with direction of divergence, suggesting that the nature of the pleiotropic effects was adaptive. Molecular genetic studies have revealed the functional basis for some of these effects, although much remains to be discovered with respect to the molecular, biochemical and developmental mechanisms underlying most quantitative trait loci (QTL) responsible for floral differences. Developing a detailed understanding of the nature of pleiotropic mutations and their phenotypic consequences is crucial for modeling how the genetic architecture of trait variation influences the tempo and trajectory of floral evolution.

Summary Epistasis refers to nonallelic interaction between genes that cause bias in estimates of genetic parameters for a phenotype with interactions of two or more genes affecting the same trait. Partitioning of epistatic effects allows true estimation of the genetic parameters affecting phenotypes. Multigenic variation plays a central role in the evolution of complex characteristics, among which pleiotropy, where a single gene affects several phenotypic characters, has a large influence. While pleiotropic interactions provide functional specificity, they increase the challenge of gene discovery and functional analysis. Overcoming pleiotropy‐based phenotypic trade‐offs offers potential for assisting breeding for complex traits. Modelling higher order nonallelic epistatic interaction, pleiotropy and non‐pleiotropy‐induced variation, and genotype × environment interaction in genomic selection may provide new paths to increase the productivity and stress tolerance for next generation of crop cultivars. Advances in statistical models, software and algorithm developments, and genomic research have facilitated dissecting the nature and extent of pleiotropy and epistasis. We overview emerging approaches to exploit positive (and avoid negative) epistatic and pleiotropic interactions in a plant breeding context, including developing avenues of artificial intelligence, novel exploitation of large‐scale genomics and phenomics data, and involvement of genes with minor effects to analyse epistatic interactions and pleiotropic quantitative trait loci, including missing heritability.

Mendelian randomization (MR) implemented through instrumental variables analysis is an increasingly popular causal inference tool used in genetic epidemiology. But it can have limitations for evaluating simultaneous causal relationships in complex data sets that include, for example, multiple genetic predictors and multiple potential risk factors associated with the same genetic variant. Here we use real and simulated data to investigate Bayesian network analysis (BN) with the incorporation of directed arcs, representing genetic anchors, as an alternative approach. A Bayesian network describes the conditional dependencies/independencies of variables using a graphical model (a directed acyclic graph) with an accompanying joint probability. In real data, we found BN could be used to infer simultaneous causal relationships that confirmed the individual causal relationships suggested by bi-directional MR, while allowing for the existence of potential horizontal pleiotropy (that would violate MR assumptions). In simulated data, BN with two directional anchors (mimicking genetic instruments) had greater power for a fixed type 1 error than bi-directional MR, while BN with a single directional anchor performed better than or as well as bi-directional MR. Both BN and MR could be adversely affected by violations of their underlying assumptions (such as genetic confounding due to unmeasured horizontal pleiotropy). BN with no directional anchor generated inference that was no better than by chance, emphasizing the importance of directional anchors in BN (as in MR). Under highly pleiotropic simulated scenarios, BN outperformed both MR (and its recent extensions) and two recently-proposed alternative approaches: a multi-SNP mediation intersection-union test (SMUT) and a latent causal variable (LCV) test. We conclude that BN incorporating genetic anchors is a useful complementary method to conventional MR for exploring causal relationships in complex data sets such as those generated from modern \"omics\" technologies.

Horizontal pleiotropy occurs when the variant has an effect on disease outside of its effect on the exposure in Mendelian randomization (MR). Violation of the ‘no horizontal pleiotropy’ assumption can cause severe bias in MR. We developed the Mendelian randomization pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) test to identify horizontal pleiotropic outliers in multi-instrument summary-level MR testing. We showed using simulations that the MR-PRESSO test is best suited when horizontal pleiotropy occurs in <50% of instruments. Next we applied the MR-PRESSO test, along with several other MR tests, to complex traits and diseases and found that horizontal pleiotropy (i) was detectable in over 48% of significant causal relationships in MR; (ii) introduced distortions in the causal estimates in MR that ranged on average from –131% to 201%; (iii) induced false-positive causal relationships in up to 10% of relationships; and (iv) could be corrected in some but not all instances. The MR-PRESSO test detects and corrects horizontal pleiotropy in multi-instrument Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. Applying the MR-PRESSO test to 4,250 MR tests of complex traits and diseases finds horizontal pleiotropy in >48% of causal relationships.

After a decade of genome-wide association studies (GWASs), fundamental questions in human genetics, such as the extent of pleiotropy across the genome and variation in genetic architecture across traits, are still unanswered. The current availability of hundreds of GWASs provides a unique opportunity to address these questions. We systematically analyzed 4,155 publicly available GWASs. For a subset of well-powered GWASs on 558 traits, we provide an extensive overview of pleiotropy and genetic architecture. We show that trait-associated loci cover more than half of the genome, and 90% of these overlap with loci from multiple traits. We find that potential causal variants are enriched in coding and flanking regions, as well as in regulatory elements, and show variation in polygenicity and discoverability of traits. Our results provide insights into how genetic variation contributes to trait variation. All GWAS results can be queried and visualized at the GWAS ATLAS resource ( https://atlas.ctglab.nl ). Systematic analyses of large-scale genome-wide association data provide an overview of pleiotropy and genetic architecture for hundreds of human complex traits and diseases.

Mendelian randomization-Egger (MR-Egger) is an analysis method for Mendelian randomization using summarized genetic data. MR-Egger consists of three parts: (1) a test for directional pleiotropy, (2) a test for a causal effect, and (3) an estimate of the causal effect. While conventional analysis methods for Mendelian randomization assume that all genetic variants satisfy the instrumental variable assumptions, the MR-Egger method is able to assess whether genetic variants have pleiotropic effects on the outcome that differ on average from zero (directional pleiotropy), as well as to provide a consistent estimate of the causal effect, under a weaker assumption— the InSIDE (INstrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect) assumption. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of the MR-Egger method with regard to its implementation and interpretation. While the MR-Egger method is a worthwhile sensitivity analysis for detecting violations of the instrumental variable assumptions, there are several reasons why causal estimates from the MR-Egger method may be biased and have inflated Type 1 error rates in practice, including violations of the InSIDE assumption and the influence of outlying variants. The issues raised in this paper have potentially serious consequences for causal inferences from the MR-Egger approach. We give examples of scenarios in which the estimates from conventional Mendelian randomization methods and MR-Egger differ, and discuss how to interpret findings in such cases.

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a valuable tool for detecting causal effects by using genetic variant associations. Opportunities to apply MR are growing rapidly with the increasing number of genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, existing MR methods rely on strong assumptions that are often violated, leading to false positives. Correlated horizontal pleiotropy, which arises when variants affect both traits through a heritable shared factor, remains a particularly challenging problem. We propose a new MR method, Causal Analysis Using Summary Effect estimates (CAUSE), that accounts for correlated and uncorrelated horizontal pleiotropic effects. We demonstrate, in simulations, that CAUSE avoids more false positives induced by correlated horizontal pleiotropy than other methods. Applied to traits studied in recent GWAS studies, we find that CAUSE detects causal relationships that have strong literature support and avoids identifying most unlikely relationships. Our results suggest that shared heritable factors are common and may lead to many false positives using alternative methods. CAUSE is a new Mendelian randomization method that accounts for correlated and uncorrelated horizontal pleiotropic effects. CAUSE is more robust to correlated pleiotropy than other methods and avoids identifying unlikely causal relationships.

With the increasing availability of large-scale GWAS summary data on various traits, Mendelian randomization (MR) has become commonly used to infer causality between a pair of traits, an exposure and an outcome. It depends on using genetic variants, typically SNPs, as instrumental variables (IVs). The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method (with a fixed-effect meta-analysis model) is most powerful when all IVs are valid; however, when horizontal pleiotropy is present, it may lead to biased inference. On the other hand, Egger regression is one of the most widely used methods robust to (uncorrelated) pleiotropy, but it suffers from loss of power. We propose a two-component mixture of regressions to combine and thus take advantage of both IVW and Egger regression; it is often both more efficient (i.e. higher powered) and more robust to pleiotropy (i.e. controlling type I error) than either IVW or Egger regression alone by accounting for both valid and invalid IVs respectively. We propose a model averaging approach and a novel data perturbation scheme to account for uncertainties in model/IV selection, leading to more robust statistical inference for finite samples. Through extensive simulations and applications to the GWAS summary data of 48 risk factor-disease pairs and 63 genetically uncorrelated trait pairs, we showcase that our proposed methods could often control type I error better while achieving much higher power than IVW and Egger regression (and sometimes than several other new/popular MR methods). We expect that our proposed methods will be a useful addition to the toolbox of Mendelian randomization for causal inference.

We generated a global genetic interaction network for Saccharomyces cerevisiae , constructing more than 23 million double mutants, identifying about 550,000 negative and about 350,000 positive genetic interactions. This comprehensive network maps genetic interactions for essential gene pairs, highlighting essential genes as densely connected hubs. Genetic interaction profiles enabled assembly of a hierarchical model of cell function, including modules corresponding to protein complexes and pathways, biological processes, and cellular compartments. Negative interactions connected functionally related genes, mapped core bioprocesses, and identified pleiotropic genes, whereas positive interactions often mapped general regulatory connections among gene pairs, rather than shared functionality. The global network illustrates how coherent sets of genetic interactions connect protein complex and pathway modules to map a functional wiring diagram of the cell.