THE GENETIC ARCHITECTURE OF REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION DURING SPECIATION-WITH-GENE-FLOW IN LAKE WHITEFISH SPECIES PAIRS ASSESSED BY RAD SEQUENCING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During speciation-with-gene-flow, effective migration varies across the genome as a function of several factors, including proximity of selected loci, recombination rate, strength of selection, and number of selected loci. Genome scans may provide better empirical understanding of the genome-wide patterns of genetic differentiation, especially if the variance due to the previously mentioned factors is partitioned. In North American lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), glacial lineages that diverged in allopatry about 60,000 years ago and came into contact 12,000 years ago have independently evolved in several lakes into two sympatric species pairs (a normal benthic and a dwarf limnetic). Variable degrees of reproductive isolation between species pairs across lakes offer a continuum of genetic and phenotypic divergence associated with adaptation to distinct ecological niches. To disentangle the complex array of genetically based barriers that locally reduce the effective migration rate between whitefish species pairs, we compared genome-wide patterns of divergence across five lakes distributed along this divergence continuum. Using restriction site associated DNA (RAD) sequencing, we combined genetic mapping and population genetics approaches to identify genomic regions resistant to introgression and derive empirical measures of the barrier strength as a function of recombination distance. We found that the size of the genomic islands of differentiation was influenced by the joint effects of linkage disequilibrium maintained by selection on many loci, the strength of ecological niche divergence, as well as demographic characteristics unique to each lake. Partial parallelism in divergent genomic regions likely reflected the combined effects of polygenic adaptation from standing variation and independent changes in the genetic architecture of postzygotic isolation. This study illustrates how integrating genetic mapping and population genomics of multiple sympatric species pairs provide a window on the speciation-with-gene-flow mechanism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".