Fixation Probability for Lytic Viruses: The Attachment-Lysis Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fixation probability of a beneficial mutation is extremely sensitive to assumptions regarding the organism's life history. In this article we compute the fixation probability using a life-history model for lytic viruses, a key model organism in experimental studies of adaptation. The model assumes that attachment times are exponentially distributed, but that the lysis time, the time between attachment and host cell lysis, is constant. We assume that the growth of the wild-type viral population is controlled by periodic sampling (population bottlenecks) and also include the possibility that clearance may occur at a constant rate, for example, through washout in a chemostat. We then compute the fixation probability for mutations that increase the attachment rate, decrease the lysis time, increase the burst size, or reduce the probability of clearance. The fixation probability of these four types of beneficial mutations can be vastly different and depends critically on the time between population bottlenecks. We also explore mutations that affect lysis time, assuming that the burst size is constrained by the lysis time, for experimental protocols that sample either free phage or free phage and artificially lysed infected cells. In all cases we predict that the fixation probability of beneficial alleles is remarkably sensitive to the time between population bottlenecks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".