As we head into the weekend, here’s a few things we’ve noticed that might be worth your screen-time.
In the journals
Smith, S.A., Beaulieu, J.M., Stamatakis, A. & Donoghue, M.J. 2011. Understanding angiosperm diversification using small and large phylogenetic trees. American Journal of Botany 98: 404–14. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1000481.
… we found that diversification rate shifts are not directly associated with the major named clades examined here, with the sole exception of Fabaceae in the GenBank mega-phylogeny. These agreements are encouraging and may support a generality about angiosperm evolution: major shifts in diversification may not be directly associated with major named clades, but rather with clades that are nested not far within these groups.
Makowsky, R., Pajewski, N.M., Klimentidis, Y.C., Vazquez, A.I., Duarte, C.W., Allison, D.B., et al. 2011. Beyond missing heritability: prediction of complex traits. PLoS Genetics 7: e1002051. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002051.
Using data from the Framingham Heart Study, we explore the genomic prediction of human height in training and validation samples while varying the statistical approach used, the number of SNPs included in the model, the validation scheme, and the number of subjects used to train the model. In our training datasets, we are able to explain a large proportion of the variation in height (h2 up to 0.83, R2 up to 0.96). However, the proportion of variance accounted for in validation samples is much smaller (ranging from 0.15 to 0.36 depending on the degree of familial information used in the training dataset)
In the blogosphere
Requiescat: Godfrey Hewitt.
PLOS Genetics cuts some ethical corners to publish a paper using crowdsourced human genome data.
Where should you submit your next paper?
