The Evolution of Recombination in a Heterogeneous Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most models describing the evolution of recombination have focused on the case of a single population, implicitly assuming that all individuals are equally likely to mate and that spatial heterogeneity in selection is absent. In these models, the evolution of recombination is driven by linkage disequilibria generated either by epistatic selection or drift. Models based on epistatic selection show that recombination can be favored if epistasis is negative and weak compared to directional selection and if the recombination modifier locus is tightly linked to the selected loci. In this article, we examine the joint effects of spatial heterogeneity in selection and epistasis on the evolution of recombination. In a model with two patches, each subject to different selection regimes, we consider the cases of mutation-selection and migration-selection balance as well as the spread of beneficial alleles. We find that including spatial heterogeneity extends the range of epistasis over which recombination can be favored. Indeed, recombination can be favored without epistasis, with negative and even with positive epistasis depending on environmental circumstances. The selection pressure acting on recombination-modifier loci is often much stronger with spatial heterogeneity, and even loosely linked modifiers and free linkage may evolve. In each case, predicting whether recombination is favored requires knowledge of both the type of environmental heterogeneity and epistasis, as none of these factors alone is sufficient to predict the outcome.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".