MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136098125 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0036

Natural selection and the genetics of adaptation in threespine stickleback

2010· article· en· W2136098125 on OpenAlexaff
Dolph Schluter, Kerry B. Marchinko, Rowan D. H. Barrett, Sean M. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSticklebackBiologyNatural selectionEvolutionary biologyAdaptation (eye)Selection (genetic algorithm)Disruptive selectionLocus (genetics)GeneticsPopulation geneticsBalancing selectionHuman evolutionary geneticsLocal adaptationAlleleDirectional selectionGene flowGasterosteusPopulationGeneGenetic variationGenomeFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing knowledge of the molecular basis of adaptation in wild populations is expanding the study of natural selection. We summarize ongoing efforts to infer three aspects of natural selection--mechanism, form and history--from the genetics of adaptive evolution in threespine stickleback that colonized freshwater after the last ice age. We tested a mechanism of selection for reduced bony armour in freshwater by tracking genotype and allele frequency changes at an underlying major locus (Ectodysplasin) in transplanted stickleback populations. We inferred disruptive selection on genotypes at the same locus in a population polymorphic for bony armour. Finally, we compared the distribution of phenotypic effect sizes of genes underlying changes in body shape with that predicted by models of adaptive peak shifts following colonization of freshwater. Studies of the effects of selection on genes complement efforts to identify the molecular basis of adaptive differences, and improve our understanding of phenotypic evolution.

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 score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations103
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207