MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023070420 · doi:10.1086/679280

Discriminating Selection on Lateral Plate Phenotype and Its Underlying Gene, <i>Ectodysplasin</i> , in Threespine Stickleback

2014· article· en· W2023070420 on OpenAlexafffund
Diana J. Rennison, Karl Heilbron, Rowan D. H. Barrett, Dolph Schluter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologySticklebackSelection (genetic algorithm)PhenotypeNatural selectionGeneticsGeneEvolutionary biologyDisruptive selectionLocus (genetics)AlleleTraitPhenotypic traitAdaptation (eye)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a signature of natural selection is discovered on a gene that is pleiotropic or in tight linkage with other genes, it is challenging to determine which of the affected phenotypes is under selection. One way to make progress is to employ methods for analyzing natural selection on correlated traits, including both genotype and phenotype. We used this approach in threespine stickleback to estimate selection on a rapidly evolving trait, lateral armor plates, while controlling for variation at its major underlying gene, Ectodysplasin (Eda), and vice versa. This allowed for independent estimates of selection on lateral plates and on Eda via other traits. Previously, we demonstrated allele frequency changes at Eda in a pond experiment. Here we show that this resulted from selection on both plates and on Eda, implying additional selection on other phenotypic traits affected by the same gene. This represents the first evidence for direct selection on lateral plates independent of selection on the Eda locus and highlights the value of measuring selection on both phenotypes and genotypes in studies of adaptation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207