Inbreeding and thermal adaptation in <i>Drosophila subobscura</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a well-adapted Drosophila subobscura population (Avala, Serbia), a drastic experiment of inbreeding was carried out to assess whether the expected level of homozygosity could be reached or if other evolutionary forces affected the process. In general, no significant changes of inversion (or arrangement) frequencies were detected after 12 brother-sister mating generations. Furthermore, no significant differences were obtained between observed and expected (under the inbreeding model) karyotypic frequencies. Thus, these results seemed to indicate that the main evolutionary factor in the experiment was inbreeding. However, in the G12 generation, complete chromosomal fixation was reached only in two out of the eight final inbred lines. In these lines, the chromosomal compositions were difficult to interpret, but they could be likely a consequence of adaptation to particular laboratory conditions (constant 18 °C, food, light period, etc.). Finally, in a second experiment, the inbred lines presented higher fertility at 18 °C than at 13 °C. Also, there was a significant line effect on fertility: inbred line number 6 (A1, J1, U1+2; U1+2+6, E8, and O3+4+7) presented the highest values, which maybe the result of an adaptation to laboratory conditions. Thus, the results obtained in our experiments reflect the adaptive potential of D. subobscura inversions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".