The Effect of Selection Environment on the Probability of Parallel Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across the great diversity of life, there are many compelling examples of parallel and convergent evolution-similar evolutionary changes arising in independently evolving populations. Parallel evolution is often taken to be strong evidence of adaptation occurring in populations that are highly constrained in their genetic variation. Theoretical models suggest a few potential factors driving the probability of parallel evolution, but experimental tests are needed. In this study, we quantify the degree of parallel evolution in 15 replicate populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens evolved in five different environments that varied in resource type and arrangement. We identified repeat changes across multiple levels of biological organization from phenotype, to gene, to nucleotide, and tested the impact of 1) selection environment, 2) the degree of adaptation, and 3) the degree of heterogeneity in the environment on the degree of parallel evolution at the gene-level. We saw, as expected, that parallel evolution occurred more often between populations evolved in the same environment; however, the extent of parallel evolution varied widely. The degree of adaptation did not significantly explain variation in the extent of parallelism in our system but number of available beneficial mutations correlated negatively with parallel evolution. In addition, degree of parallel evolution was significantly higher in populations evolved in a spatially structured, multiresource environment, suggesting that environmental heterogeneity may be an important factor constraining adaptation. Overall, our results stress the importance of environment in driving parallel evolutionary changes and point to a number of avenues for future work for understanding when evolution is predictable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".