Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual selection drives the evolution of traits involved in the competition for mates. Although considerable research has focused on the evolution of sexually selected traits, their underlying genetic architecture is poorly resolved. Here I address the pleiotropic effects and genomic locations of sexually selected genes. These two important characteristics can impose considerable constraints on evolvability and may influence our understanding of the process of sexual selection. Theoretical models are inconsistent regarding the genomic location of sexually selected genes. Models that do not incorporate pleiotropic effects often predict sex linkage. Conversely, sex linkage is not explicitly predicted by the condition-dependent model (which considers pleiotropic effects). Evidence largely based on reciprocal crosses supports the notion of sex linkage. However, although they infer genetic contribution, reciprocal crosses cannot identify the genes or their pleiotropic effects. By surveying the genome of Drosophila melanogaster, I provide evidence for the genomic location and pleiotropic effects of 63 putatively sexually selected genes. Interestingly, most are pleiotropic (73%), and they are not preferentially sex linked. Their pleiotropic effects include fertility, development, life span, and viability, which may contribute to condition and/or fitness. My findings may also provide evidence for the capture of genetic variation in condition via the pleiotropic effects of sexually selected genes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".