MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COUNTERGRADIENT VARIATION IN THE SEXUAL COLORATION OF GUPPIES (POECILIA RETICULATA): DROSOPTERIN SYNTHESIS BALANCES CAROTENOID AVAILABILITY

2005· article· en· W2174981071 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory F. Grether, Molly E. Cummings, Jocelyn Hudon

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alberta Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeciliaBiologyVariation (astronomy)ZoologyGuppyCarotenoidEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trinidad guppies (Poecilia reticulata) are distributed along an environmental gradient in carotenoid availability that limits the carotenoid content of the orange spots of males. The amount of synthetic red pteridines (drosopterins) in the orange spots covaries with the carotenoid content, such that the ratio of the two types of pigments is roughly conserved across streams. Carotenoids and drosopterins have different spectral properties and thus the ratio of the two types of pigments affects the shape of the orange spot reflectance spectrum. Geographic conservation of the carotenoid:drosopterin ratio suggests that males may be under selection to maintain a particular hue. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the pigmentation and coloration of guppies from six streams in the field to that of second-generation descendants of the same populations raised on three dietary carotenoid levels in the laboratory. The results show clearly that the geographic variation in drosopterin production is largely genetic and that the hue of the orange spots is conserved among populations in the field, relative to the laboratory diet groups. This is a countergradient pattern because genetic differences between populations in drosopterin production mask the effect of carotenoid availability on the hue of the orange spots. The potential for countergradient sexual selection to contribute to reproductive isolation between populations is discussed.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations87
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207