DNA methylation: A source of random variation in natural populations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epigenetic processes (e.g., DNA methylation) have been proposed as potentially important evolutionary mechanisms. However, before drawing conclusions about their evolutionary relevance, we need to evaluate the independence of epigenetic variation from genetic variation, as well as the extent of methylation polymorphism in nature. We evaluated these in natural populations of a clonal fish, Chrosomus eos-neogaeus, for which genetically identical individuals may be found in distinct environments. A genomic survey confirms the genetic uniformity of individuals, whereas a substantial level of inter-individual variation results in DNA methylation. Survey of the methylation status of the CpG dinucleotides of a fragment of a retrotransposon confirmed a marked difference in epiallelic composition among tissues, as well as among individuals. This study provides further evidence of epigenetic variation in the absence of genetic variation and demonstrates that this process can be a source of random variation in natural populations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it