MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169179032 · doi:10.1017/s0016672303006499

Estimating numbers of EMS-induced mutations affecting life history traits in <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i> in crosses between inbred sublines

2003· article· en· W2169179032 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel L. Halligan, A. D. Peters, Peter D. Keightley

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsInbred strainCaenorhabditis elegansMutationSelection (genetic algorithm)MutantGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inbred lines of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans containing independent EMS-induced mutations were crossed to the ancestral wild-type strain (N2). Replicated inbred sublines were generated from the F1 offspring under conditions of minimal selection and, along with the N2 and mutant progenitor lines, were assayed for several fitness correlates including relative fitness (w). A modification of the Castle-Wright estimator and a maximum-likelihood (ML) method were used to estimate the numbers and effects of detectable mutations affecting these characters. The ML method allows for variation in mutational effects by fitting either one or two classes of mutational effect, and uses a Box-Cox power transformation of residual values to account for a skewed distribution of residuals. Both the Castle-Wright and the ML analyses suggest that most of the variation among sublines was due to a few (approximately 1.5-2.5 on average) large-effect mutations. Under ML, a model with two classes of mutational effects, including a class with small effects, fitted better than a single mutation class model, although not significantly better. Nonetheless, given that we expect there to be many mutations induced per line, our results support the hypothesis that mutations vary widely in their effects.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics ResearchSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207