Diversity in the Reproductive Modes of European Daphnia pulicaria Deviates from the Geographical Parthenogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple transitions to obligate parthenogenesis have occurred in the Daphnia pulex complex in North America. These newly formed asexual lineages are differentially distributed being found predominantly at high latitudes. This conforms to the rule of geographical parthenogenesis postulating prevalence of asexuals at high latitudes and altitudes. While the reproductive mode of high-latitude populations is relatively well studied, little is known about the reproduction mode in high altitudes. This study aimed to assess the reproductive mode of Daphnia pulicaria, a species of the D. pulex complex, from high altitude lakes in Europe. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Variation at eight microsatellite loci revealed that D. pulicaria from the High Tatra Mountains (HTM) had low genotype richness and showed excess of heterozygotes and significant deviations from Hardy-Weinberg expectations, and was thus congruent with reproduction by obligate parthenogenesis. By contrast, populations from the Pyrenees (Pyr) were generally in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and had higher genotypic richness, suggesting that they are cyclic parthenogens. Four lakes from lowland areas (LLaP) had populations with an uncertain or mixed breeding mode. All D. pulicaria had mtDNA ND5 haplotypes of the European D. pulicaria lineage. Pyr were distinct from LLaP and HTM at the ND5 gene. By contrast, HTM shared two haplotypes with LLaP and one with Pyr. Principal Coordinate Analysis of the microsatellite data revealed clear genetic differentiation into three groups. HTM isolates were intermediate to Pyr and LLaP, congruent with a hybrid origin. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Inferred transitions to obligate parthenogenesis have occurred only in HTM, most likely as a result of hybridizations. In contrast to North American populations, these transitions do not appear to involve meiosis suppressor genes and have not been accompanied by polyploidy. The absence of obligate parthenogenesis in Pyr, an environment highly similar to the HTM, may be due to the lack of opportunities for hybridization.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".