MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099725022 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msq356

Polymorphism, Divergence, and the Role of Recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genome Evolution

2011· article· en· W2099725022 on OpenAlexaff
Asher D. Cutter, Arnold M. Moses

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsPopulation genomicsGenomeRecombinationBalancing selectionPopulationSaccharomyces cerevisiaeGene conversionNatural selectionHomologous recombinationEvolutionary biologyGenomicsGenetic variationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A contentious issue in molecular evolution and population genetics concerns the roles of recombination as a facilitator of natural selection and as a potential source of mutational input into genomes. The budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, in particular, has injected both insights and confusion into this topic, as an early system subject to genomic analysis with subsequent conflicting reports. Here, we revisit the role of recombination in mutation and selection with recent genome-wide maps of population polymorphism and recombination for S. cerevisiae. We confirm that recombination-associated mutation does not leave a genomic signature in yeast and conclude that a previously observed, enigmatic, negative recombination-divergence correlation is largely a consequence of weak selection and other genomic covariates. We also corroborate the presence of biased gene conversion from patterns of polymorphism. Moreover, we identify significant positive relations between recombination and population polymorphism at putatively neutrally evolving sites, independent of other factors and the genomic scale of interrogation. We conclude that widespread natural selection across the yeast genome has left its imprint on segregating genetic variation, but that this signature is much weaker than in Drosophila and Caenorhabditis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207