MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The red queen coupled with directional selection favours the evolution of sex

2012· article· en· W2147838711 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Hodgson, Sarah P. Otto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)Evolutionary biologySexual selectionDirectional selectionQueen (butterfly)Natural selectionZoologyGeneticsGenetic variationGeneArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations49
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207