Sam Yeaman

Genotype–environment association (GEA) studies have the potential to identify the genetic basis of local adaptation in natural populations. Specifically, GEA approaches look for a correlation between allele frequencies and putatively selective features of the environment. Genetic markers with extreme evidence of correlation with the environment are presumed to be tagging the location of alleles that contribute to local adaptation. In this study, we propose a new method for GEA studies called the Weighted‐ Z Analysis (WZA) that combines information from closely linked sites into analysis windows in a way that was inspired by methods for calculating F ST . Performing GEA methods in analysis windows has the advantage that it takes advantage of the increased linkage disequilibrium expected surrounding sites subject to local adaptation. We analyse simulations modelling local adaptation to heterogeneous environments to compare the WZA with existing methods. In the majority of cases we tested, the WZA either outperformed single‐SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism)‐based approaches or performed similarly. In particular, the WZA outperformed individual SNP approaches when a small number of individuals or demes were sampled. Particularly troubling, we found that some GEA methods exhibit very high false positive rates. We applied the WZA to previously published data from lodgepole pine and identified candidate loci that were identified in the original study alongside numerous loci that were not found in the original study.

The use of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) data sets has increased dramatically over the last decade, but there have been few systematic analyses quantifying the accuracy of the commonly used variant caller programs. Here we used a familial design consisting of diploid tissue from a single lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta ) parent and the maternally derived haploid tissue from 106 full‐sibling offspring, where mismatches could only arise due to mutation or bioinformatic error. Given the rarity of mutation, we used the rate of mismatches between parent and offspring genotype calls to infer the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping error rates of FreeBayes, HaplotypeCaller, SAMtools, UnifiedGenotyper, and VarScan. With baseline filtering HaplotypeCaller and UnifiedGenotyper yielded more SNPs and higher error rates by one to two orders of magnitude, whereas FreeBayes, SAMtools and VarScan yielded lower numbers of SNPs and more modest error rates. To facilitate comparison between variant callers we standardized each SNP set to the same number of SNPs using additional filtering, where UnifiedGenotyper consistently produced the smallest proportion of genotype errors, followed by HaplotypeCaller, VarScan, SAMtools, and FreeBayes. Additionally, we found that error rates were minimized for SNPs called by more than one variant caller. Finally, we evaluated the performance of various commonly used filtering metrics on SNP calling. Our analysis provides a quantitative assessment of the accuracy of five widely used variant calling programs and offers valuable insights into both the choice of variant caller program and the choice of filtering metrics, especially for researchers using non‐model study systems.