SHIFTING PATTERNS IN GENETIC CONTROL AT THE EMBRYO-ALEVIN BOUNDARY IN BROOK CHARR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal inputs to offspring early in development are initially high but the process of development suggests that ontogenetic shifts in the importance of maternal genetic variation relative to other sources should occur. We investigated additive genetic variance and covariance for direct (animal), sire, and maternal effects on embryonic length (EL), yolk sac volume (YSV), and alevin (after yolk sac resorption) length (AL) for 460 embryonic and 460 alevin brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) in 23 half-sib families (12 sires, 23 dams). There were no additive genetic effects of sires or individual animals on their own phenotype using sire-dam and maternal-animal models for YSV or EL (h(a)2 < 0.05). However, at the alevin stage we detected low but significant heritability for AL (h(a)2 = 0.14 +/- 0.11). Conversely, maternal genetic effects were high for both embryonic traits (h(EL)2 = 0.61 +/- 0.05; h(YSU)2 = 0.57 +/- 0.06) but faded rapidly for postresorption length (h(AL)2 = 0.18 +/- 0.04). Maternal effects in the sire-dam model corresponded highly with those in the animal-dam model. We did not detect significant genetic covariance between progeny and dams for preresorption traits or between sires and dams for any trait. However, following resorption of the yolk sac, the genetic value of dams for AL was negatively correlated with that of individual progeny (r(m,a) = -0.38 +/- 0.13), suggesting trade-offs and/or stabilizing selection between maternal and animal genetic trait value. This finding was supported by models of dam fecundity on offspring length and dam weight in phenotypic space. Heritability estimates using simple regression of embryo phenotype on adult parental phenotype produced upwardly biased estimates of genetic variance (h2 > 1.0). We propose that development through the embryo-alevin boundary may be a major point in salmonids for ontogenetic changes in the genetic architecture of embryo size from maternal genetic effects to those of the individual organism, and that maternal-offspring conflicts in resource allocation related to size may be partially indicated by negative genetic covariance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".