Ploidy evolution in the yeast <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>: a test of the nutrient limitation hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nutrient limitation hypothesis provides a nongenetic explanation for the evolution of life cycles that retain both haploid and diploid phases: differences in nutrient requirements and uptake allow haploids to override the potential genetic advantages provided by diploidy under certain nutrient limiting conditions. The relative fitness of an isogenic series of haploid, diploid and tetraploid yeast cells (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), which were also equivalent at the mating type locus, was measured. Fitness was measured both by growth rate against a common competitor and by intrinsic growth rate in isolated cultures, under four environmental conditions: (1) rich medium (YPD) at the preferred growth temperature (30 °C); (2) nutrient poor medium (MM) at 30 °C; (3) YPD at a nonpreferred temperature (37 °C); and (4) MM at 37 °C. In contrast to the predictions of the nutrient limitation hypothesis, haploids grew significantly faster than diploids under nutrient rich conditions, but there were no apparent differences between them when fitness was determined by relative competitive ability. In addition, temperature affected the relative growth of haploids and diploids, with haploids growing proportionately faster at higher temperatures. Tetraploids performed very poorly under all conditions compared. Cell geometric parameters were not consistent predictors of fitness under the conditions measured.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".