Population dynamics of the 2 major mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in experimental populations of<i>Drosophila subobscura</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of Drosophila subobscura mitochondrial DNA has been studied in experimental populations, founded with flies from a natural population from Calvià (Majorca, Balearic Islands, Spain). This population, like others founded in Europe, is characterized by the presence of 2 very common (>95%) mitochondrial haplotypes (named I and II) and rare and endemic haplotypes that appear at very low frequencies. Four experimental populations were established with flies having a heterogeneous nuclear genetic background, which was representative of the composition of the natural population. The populations were started with haplotypes I and II at an initial frequency of 50% each. After 33 generations, the 2 haplotypes coexisted. Random drift could be rejected as the only force responsible for the observed changes in haplotype frequencies. A slight but significant linear trend favouring a mtDNA (haploid) fitness effect has been detected, with a nonlinear deviation that could be due to a nuclear component. An analysis of chromosomal arrangements was made before the foundations of the cages and at generation 23. Our results indicated that the hypothesis that the maintenance of the frequencies of haplotypes I and II in natural populations could be due to their association with chromosomal arrangements remains controversial.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".