MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of parasitic sex‐ratio distorters on host genetic structure in the <i>Armadillidium vulgare</i>–<i>Wolbachia</i> association

2011· article· en· W1603148667 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Verne, Monique Johnson, Didier Bouchon, Frédéric Grandjean

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWolbachiaBiologyMitochondrial DNAGeneticsHost (biology)Genetic structureLinkage disequilibriumEvolutionary biologyGenetic variationGenotypeHaplotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the pill bug Armadillidium vulgare (Crustacea, Oniscidea), Wolbachia facilitates its spread through vertical transmission via the eggs by inducing feminization of genetic males. The spread of feminizing Wolbachia within and across populations is therefore expected to influence mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genetic structure by hitchhiking. To test this hypothesis, we analysed nuclear and mtDNA genetic structure, and Wolbachia prevalence in 13 populations of the pill bug host. Wolbachia prevalence (ranging from 0% to 100% of sampled females) was highly variable among populations. All three Wolbachia strains previously observed in A. vulgare were present (wVulC, wVulM and wVulP) with wVulC being the most prevalent (nine of 13 populations). The host showed a genetic structure on five microsatellite loci that is compatible with isolation by distance. The strong genetic structure observed on host mtDNA was correlated with Wolbachia prevalence: three mitotypes were in strong linkage disequilibrium with the three strains of Wolbachia. Neutrality tests showed that the mtDNA polymorphism is not neutral, and we thus suggest that this unusual pattern of mtDNA polymorphism found in A. vulgare was due to Wolbachia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influencesFrench-language works237,207