MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965693109 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2472

Local climatic adaptation in a widespread microorganism

2014· article· en· W1965693109 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Baptiste Leducq, Guillaume Charron, Pedram Samani, Alexandre K. Dubé, Kayla Sylvester, Brielle T. James, Pedro Almeida, José Paulo Sampaio, Chris Todd Hittinger, Graham Bell, Christian R. Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCline (biology)Adaptation (eye)Local adaptationEcologyBiologyRange (aeronautics)Climate changeGenetic variationDivergence (linguistics)GeographyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploring the ability of organisms to locally adapt is critical for determining the outcome of rapid climate changes, yet few studies have addressed this question in microorganisms. We investigated the role of a heterogeneous climate on adaptation of North American populations of the wild yeast Saccharomyces paradoxus. We found abundant among-strain variation for fitness components across a range of temperatures, but this variation was only partially explained by climatic variation in the distribution area. Most of fitness variation was explained by the divergence of genetically distinct groups, distributed along a north-south cline, suggesting that these groups have adapted to distinct climatic conditions. Within-group fitness components were correlated with climatic conditions, illustrating that even ubiquitous microorganisms locally adapt and harbour standing genetic variation for climate-related traits. Our results suggest that global climatic changes could lead to adaptation to new conditions within groups, or changes in their geographical distributions.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations92
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207