The Effect of Polymorphisms in the <i>Enhancer of split</i> Gene Complex on Bristle Number Variation in a Large Wild-Caught Cohort of <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Enhancer of split complex [E(spl)-C] in Drosophila encompasses a variety of functional elements controlling bristle patterning and on the basis of prior work is a strong candidate for harboring alleles having subtle effects on bristle number variation. Here we extend earlier studies identifying associations between complex phenotypes and polymorphisms segregating among inbred laboratory lines of Drosophila and test the influence of E(spl)-C on bristle number variation in a natural cohort. We describe results from an association mapping study using 203 polymorphisms spread throughout the E(spl)-C genotyped in 2000 wild-caught Drosophila melanogaster. Despite power to detect associations accounting for as little as 2% of segregating variation for bristle number, and saturating the region with single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we identified no single SNP marker showing a significant (additive over loci) effect after correcting for multiple tests. Using a newly developed test we conservatively identify six regions of the E(spl)-C in which the insertion of transposable elements as a class contributes to variation in bristle number, apparently in a sex- or trait-limited fashion. Finally, we carry out all possible 20,503 two-way tests for epistasis and identify a slight excess of marginally significant interactions, although none survive multiple-testing correction. It may not be straightforward to extend the results of laboratory-based association studies to 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".