MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Origin and maintenance of sex: the evolutionary joys of self sex

2009· article· en· W2127226145 on OpenAlexaff
Root Gorelick, Jessica Carpinone

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sex is generally thought of as meiosis, conjugation, and syngamy, with the primary function of sex believed to be genetic mixing. However, conjugation does not occur with complete automixis, whereas syngamy does not occur with restitutional automixis. Self sex in the forms of automixis and autogamy does not include genetic mixing. Yet sex, including self sex, is necessary for most eukaryotic lineages. What is the purpose of sex without genetic mixing? Obligate self sex is not an evolutionary dead end, but holds the key to understanding the evolutionary origin, function, maintenance, and ubiquity of sex. We extend the rejuvenescence hypothesis that sex provides a necessary developmental reset for multicellular eukaryotes and even many unicellular eukaryotes. Sex reduces additive genetic variance of epigenetic signals, especially cytosine methylation, and of ploidy levels. Furthermore, we argue that syngamy is a modified form of meiosis that maintains ploidy and resets epigenetic signals. Epigenetic resetting is consistent with sex being induced by starvation or desiccation. Diminution of additive genetic variance is consistent with the origin and maintenance of an adaptive trait, sex, that has been present for approximately two billion years. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 98, 707‐728.

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 score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations59
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207