Does inbreeding affects developmental stability in Drosophila subobscura populations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present paper, we focused on the coadaptive aspect of genetic variability at population level and its relation to genomic stress such as inbreeding. The paper evaluates the effects of an experimental reduction of average heterozygosity after fourteen generations of systematic inbreeding in laboratory conditions, on developmental stability in Drosophila subobscura populations from two ecologically and topologically distinct habitats, knowing that they possess a certain degree of genetic differences due to their different evolutionary histories. The aims were to analyze: (i) the variability change of wing size (length and width) among the inbred lines from both populations; (ii) the relations between homozigosity and level of fluctuating asymmetry as a potential measure of developmental instability, in inbred lines originating from two populations. Results for the wing size showed similar between line variability pattern across generations of systematic inbreeding in both populations. The obtained results suggest that variability of fluctuating asymmetry as a measure of developmental instability can not be related to homozygosity due to inbreeding per se, in both experimental populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".