Variation and Evolution of Male Sex Combs in Drosophila: Nature of Selection Response and Theories of Genetic Variation for Sexual Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the genetic architecture of variation in male sex comb bristle number, a rapidly evolving secondary sexual character of Drosophila. Twenty-four generations of divergent artificial selection for sex comb bristle number in a heterogeneous population of Drosophila melanogaster resulted in a significant response that was more pronounced in the direction of low bristle numbers. We observed a strong positive correlated response to selection in the corresponding female transverse bristle row. The correlated response in male abdominal and sternopleural bristle numbers, on the other hand, did not follow the same pattern as sex comb bristle number differences between selection lines. Relaxation-of-selection experiments along with mate choice and fecundity assays using the selection lines developed demonstrated the action of stabilizing selection on sex comb bristle number. Our results show (1) substantial genetic variation underlying sex comb bristle number variation; (2) a weak relationship between the sex comb and developmentally related, non-sex bristle systems; and (3) that sexual selection may be a driving force in sex comb evolution, indicating the potential of sex combs to diversify rapidly during population differentiation and speciation. We discuss the implications of these results for theories of genetic variation in display and nondisplay male sex traits.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".