MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE ECOLOGY AND GENETICS OF FITNESS IN CHLAMYDOMONAS. XIII. FITNESS OF LONG-TERM SEXUAL AND ASEXUAL POPULATIONS IN BENIGN ENVIRONMENTS

2006· article· en· W2018953152 on OpenAlexafffund
Sébastien Renaut, Taissa Replansky, Audrey Heppleston, Graham Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGoddard Space Flight Center
KeywordsBiologyGenetic FitnessEpistasisAsexual reproductionEvolutionary biologySexual reproductionGenetic loadGeneticsGenetic variationGameteEvolution of sexual reproductionSexual selectionMeiosisEcologyPopulationGeneSpermDemographyInbreeding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measured the mean fitness of populations of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii maintained in the laboratory as obligately sexual or asexual populations for about 100 sexual cycles and about 1000 asexual generations. Sexuality (random gamete fusion followed by meiosis) is expected to reduce mutational load and increase mean fitness by combining deleterious mutations from different lines of descent. We found no evidence for this process of mutation clearance: the mean fitness of sexual populations did not exceed that of asexual populations, whether measured through competition or in pure culture. We found instead that sexual progeny suffer an immediate loss in fitness, and that sexual lines maintain genetic variance for fitness. We suggest that sexual populations at equilibrium with selection in a benign environment may be mixtures of several or many epistatic genotypes with nearly equal fitness. Recombination between these genotypes reduces mean fitness and creates genetic variance for fitness. This may provide fuel for continued selection should the environment change.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207