The red queen coupled with directional selection favours the evolution of sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why sexual reproduction has evolved to be such a widespread mode of reproduction remains a major question in evolutionary biology. Although previous studies have shown that increased sex and recombination can evolve in the presence of host-parasite interactions (the 'Red Queen hypothesis' for sex), many of these studies have assumed that multiple loci mediate infection vs. resistance. Data suggest, however, that a major locus is typically involved in antigen presentation and recognition. Here, we explore a model where only one locus mediates host-parasite interactions, but a second locus is subject to directional selection. Even though the effects of these genes on fitness are independent, we show that increased rates of sex and recombination are favoured at a modifier gene that alters the rate of genetic mixing. This result occurs because of selective interference in finite populations (the 'Hill-Robertson effect'), which also favours sex. These results suggest that the Red Queen hypothesis may help to explain the evolution of sex by contributing a form of persistent selection, which interferes with directional selection at other loci and thereby favours sex and recombination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".