The decline in fitness with inbreeding: evidence for negative dominance‐by‐dominance epistasis in <i><scp>D</scp>rosophila melanogaster</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic interactions can play an important role in the evolution of reproductive strategies. In particular, negative dominance-by-dominance epistasis for fitness can theoretically favour sex and recombination. This form of epistasis can be detected statistically because it generates nonlinearity in the relationship between fitness and inbreeding coefficient. Measures of fitness in progressively inbred lines tend to show limited evidence for epistasis. However, tests of this kind can be biased against detecting an accelerating decline due to line losses at higher inbreeding levels. We tested for dominance-by-dominance epistasis in Drosophila melanogaster by examining viability at five inbreeding levels that were generated simultaneously, avoiding the bias against detecting nonlinearity that has affected previous studies. We find an accelerating rate of fitness decline with inbreeding, indicating that dominance-by-dominance epistasis is negative on average, which should favour sex and recombination.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".