Effect of Varying Epistasis on the Evolution of Recombination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether recombination decelerates or accelerates a population's response to selection depends, at least in part, on how fitness-determining loci interact. Realistically, all genomes likely contain fitness interactions both with positive and with negative epistasis. Therefore, it is crucial to determine the conditions under which the potential beneficial effects of recombination with negative epistasis prevail over the detrimental effects of recombination with positive epistasis. Here, we examine the simultaneous effects of diverse epistatic interactions with different strengths and signs in a simplified model system with independent pairs of interacting loci and selection acting only on the haploid phase. We find that the average form of epistasis does not predict the average amount of linkage disequilibrium generated or the impact on a recombination modifier when compared to results using the entire distribution of epistatic effects and associated single-mutant effects. Moreover, we show that epistatic interactions of a given strength can produce very different effects, having the greatest impact when selection is weak. In summary, we observe that the evolution of recombination at mutation-selection balance might be driven by a small number of interactions with weak selection rather than by the average epistasis of all interactions. We illustrate this effect with an analysis of published data of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Thus to draw conclusions on the evolution of recombination from experimental data, it is necessary to consider the distribution of epistatic interactions together with the associated selection coefficients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".