Host‐Parasite Coevolution and Selection on Sex through the Effects of Segregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advantage of producing novel variation to keep apace of coevolving species has been invoked as a major explanation for the evolution and maintenance of sex (the Red Queen hypothesis). Recent theoretical investigations of the Red Queen hypothesis have focused on the effects of recombination in haploid species, finding that species interactions rarely favor the evolution of sex unless selection is strong. Yet by focusing on haploids, these studies have ignored a potential advantage of sex in diploids: generating novel combinations of alleles at a particular locus through segregation. Here we investigate models of host-parasite coevolution in diploid species to determine whether the advantages of segregation might rescue the Red Queen hypothesis as a more general explanation for the evolution of sex. We find that the effects of segregation can favor the evolution of sex but only under some models of infection and some parameter combinations, almost always requiring inbreeding. In all other cases, the effects of segregation on selected loci favor reductions in the frequency of sex. In cases where segregation and recombination act in opposite directions, we found that the effects of segregation dominate as an evolutionary force acting on sex in diploids.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".