MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137328473 · doi:10.1534/genetics.106.059444

The Role of Pleiotropy in the Maintenance of Sex in Yeast

2007· article· en· W2137328473 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica A. Hill, Sarah P. Otto

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAsexual reproductionPleiotropyGeneticsSexual reproductionMutation AccumulationSelection (genetic algorithm)PopulationMutation rateSaccharomyces cerevisiaeGenetic FitnessSporeYeastEvolutionary biologyGenePhenotypeBotanyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In facultatively sexual species, lineages that reproduce asexually for a period of time can accumulate mutations that reduce their ability to undergo sexual reproduction when sex is favorable. We propagated Saccharomyces cerevisiae asexually for approximately 800 generations, after which we measured the change in sexual fitness, measured as the proportion of asci observed in sporulation medium. The sporulation rate in cultures propagated asexually at small population size declined by 8%, on average, over this time period, indicating that the majority of mutations that affect sporulation rate are deleterious. Interestingly, the sporulation rate in cultures propagated asexually at large population size improved by 11%, on average, indicating that selection on asexual function effectively eliminated most of the mutations deleterious to sporulation ability. These results suggest that pleiotropy between mutations' effects on asexual fitness and sexual fitness was predominantly positive, at least for the mutations accumulated in this experimental evolution study. A positive correlation between growth rate and sporulation rate among lines also provided evidence for positive pleiotropy. These results demonstrate that, at least under certain circumstances, selection acting on asexual fitness can help to maintain sexual function.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207