MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144625183 · doi:10.1534/genetics.109.112920

The Role of Advantageous Mutations in Enhancing the Evolution of a Recombination Modifier

2010· article· en· W2144625183 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Hartfield, Sarah P. Otto, Peter D. Keightley

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological Sciences
KeywordsRecombinationGeneticsBiologyFixation (population genetics)Linkage disequilibriumMutationSelection (genetic algorithm)PopulationMutation rateAlleleHaplotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the evolution of recombination is still a major problem in evolutionary genetics, recent theoretical studies have shown that recombination can evolve by breaking down interference ("Hill-Robertson effects") among multiple loci. This leads to selection on a recombination modifier in a population subject to recurrent deleterious mutation. Here, we use computer simulations to investigate the evolution of a recombination modifier under three different scenarios of recurrent mutation in a finite population: (1) mutations are deleterious only, (2) mutations are advantageous only, and (3) there is a mixture of deleterious and advantageous mutations. We also investigate how linkage disequilibrium, the strength of selection acting on a modifier, and effective population size change under the different scenarios. We observe that adding even a small number of advantageous mutations increases the fixation rate of modifiers that increase recombination, especially if the effects of deleterious mutations are weak. However, the strength of selection on a modifier is less than the summed strengths had there been deleterious mutations only and advantageous mutations only.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations48
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207