MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gene expression analysis for the identification of selection and local adaptation in fishes

2010· review· en· W2032772825 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Larsen, Patricia M. Schulte, Einar Eg Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGene expressionGeneAdaptation (eye)Identification (biology)Local adaptationEvolutionary biologyNatural selectionGenetic variationSelection (genetic algorithm)Computational biologyGeneticsRegulation of gene expressionExpression (computer science)EcologyPopulationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, variation in gene expression has been recognized as an important component of environmental adaptation in multiple model species, including a few fish species. There is, however, still little known about the genetic basis of adaptation in gene expression resulting from variation in the aquatic environment (e.g. temperature, salinity and oxygen) and the physiological effect and costs of such differences in gene expression. This review presents and discusses progress and pitfalls of applying gene expression analyses to fishes and suggests simple frameworks to get started with gene expression analysis. It is emphasized that well-planned gene expression studies can serve as an important tool for the identification of selection in local populations of fishes, even for non-traditional model species where limited genomic information is available. Recent studies focusing on gene expression variation among natural fish populations are reviewed, highlighting the latest applications that combine genetic evidence from neutral markers and gene expression data.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207