Natural selection shapes nucleotide polymorphism across the genome of the nematode <i>Caenorhabditis briggsae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combined actions of natural selection, mutation, and recombination forge the landscape of genetic variation across genomes. One frequently observed manifestation of these processes is a positive association between neutral genetic variation and local recombination rates. Two selective mechanisms and/or recombination-associated mutation (RAM) could generate this pattern, and the relative importance of these alternative possibilities remains unresolved generally. Here we quantify nucleotide differences within populations, between populations, and between species to test for genome-wide effects of selection and RAM in the partially selfing nematode Caenorhabditis briggsae. We find that nearly half of genome-wide variation in nucleotide polymorphism is explained by differences in local recombination rates. By quantifying divergence between several reproductively isolated lineages, we demonstrate that ancestral polymorphism generates a spurious signal of RAM for closely related lineages, with implications for analyses of humans and primates; RAM is, at most, a minor factor in C. briggsae. We conclude that the positive relation between nucleotide polymorphism and the rate of crossover represents the footprint of natural selection across the C. briggsae genome and demonstrate that background selection against deleterious mutations is sufficient to explain this pattern. Hill-Robertson interference also leaves a signature of more effective purifying selection in high-recombination regions of the genome. Finally, we identify an emerging contrast between widespread adaptive hitchhiking effects in species with large outcrossing populations (e.g., Drosophila) versus pervasive background selection effects on the genomes of organisms with self-fertilizing lifestyles and/or small population sizes (e.g., Caenorhabditis elegans, C. briggsae, Arabidopsis thaliana, Lycopersicon, human). These results illustrate how recombination, mutation, selection, and population history interact in important ways to shape molecular heterogeneity within and between genomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".