Evolutionary Consequences of Altered Atmospheric Oxygen in Drosophila melanogaster
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve replicate populations of Drosophila melanogaster, all derived from a common ancestor, were independently evolved for 34+ generations in one of three treatment environments of varying PO(2): hypoxia (5.0-10.1 kPa), normoxia (21.3 kPa), and hyperoxia (40.5 kPa). Several traits related to whole animal performance and metabolism were assayed at various stages via "common garden" and reciprocal transplant assays to directly compare evolved and acclimatory differences among treatments. Results clearly demonstrate the evolution of a greater tolerance to acute hypoxia in the hypoxia-evolved populations, consistent with adaptation to this environment. Greater hypoxia tolerance was associated with an increase in citrate synthase activity in fly homogenate when compared to normoxic (control) populations, suggesting an increase in mitochondrial volume density in these populations. In contrast, no direct evidence of increased performance of the hyperoxia-evolved populations was detected, although a significant decrease in the tolerance of these populations to acute hypoxia suggests a cost to adaptation to hyperoxia. Hyperoxia-evolved populations had lower productivity overall (i.e., across treatment environments) and there was no evidence that hypoxia or hyperoxia-evolved populations had greatest productivity or longevity in their respective treatment environments, suggesting that these assays failed to capture the components of fitness relevant to adaptation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".