MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE LENGTH OF ADAPTIVE WALKS IS INSENSITIVE TO STARTING FITNESS IN ASPERGILLUS NIDULANS

2011· article· en· W1604756962 on OpenAlexaff
Danna R. Gifford, Sijmen E. Schoustra, Rees Kassen

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsOntario GenomicsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFitness landscapeAdaptation (eye)Evolutionary biologySelection (genetic algorithm)GenotypeGeneticsAspergillus nidulansMutantGenePopulationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptation involves the successive substitution of beneficial mutations by selection, a process known as an adaptive walk. Gradualist models of adaptation, which assume that all mutations are small relative to the distance to a fitness optimum, predict that adaptive walks should be longer when the founding genotype is less well adapted. More recent work modeling adaptation as a sequence of moves in phenotype or genotype space predicts, by contrast, much shorter adaptive walks irrespective of the fitness of the founding genotype. Here, we provide what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first direct test of these alternative models, measuring the length of adaptive walks in evolving lineages of fungus that differ initially in fitness. Contrary to the gradualist view, we show that the length of adaptive walks in the fungus Aspergillus nidulans is insensitive to starting fitness and involves just two mutations on average. This arises because poorly adapted populations tend to fix mutations of larger average effect than those of better-adapted populations. Our results suggest that the length of adaptive walks may be independent of the fitness of the founding genotype and, moreover, that poorly adapted populations can quickly adapt to novel environments.

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 score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations35
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207