MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037243194 · doi:10.1093/jhered/esi071

Age-Specific Changes in Epistatic Effects on Mortality Rate in Drosophila melanogaster

2005· article· en· W2037243194 on OpenAlexaff
Christine C. Spencer, Daniel Promislow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heredity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsEpistasisBiologyLongevityDrosophila melanogasterSenescenceEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGeneGenetic variationDrosophila (subgenus)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models for the evolution of senescence assume that genes with age-specific effects act independently of one another. Although recent empirical data show that longevity is influenced in part by interactions between genes, there are currently few data on whether epistasis influences age-specific components of mortality. To gauge if and how interactions affect age-specific traits, we incorporated the Drosophila visible marker mutations ebony, forked, and purple into seven wild-caught strains of D. melanogaster to examine gene x genetic background interactions. We found significant natural genetic variation for longevity and baseline mortality rates. Gene x genetic background interactions were prevalent not only for longevity but also for baseline mortality rates and age-specific mortality rates. We conclude that gene x genetic background epistasis is prevalent for aging-related traits and could play a significant role in the evolution of aging. These results suggest that future genetic models for the evolution of aging should incorporate the effects of epistasis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.261
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations47
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HereditySame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207