Genetic analysis of body color phenotypes in the fruit fly<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>: supporting evidence through laboratory-selected dark and light strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830, abdominal melanisation varies in a quantitative manner, but little attention has been paid to the genetic basis of different phenotypic classes and their ecological significance in the wild populations. Laboratory-selected darker and lighter body color strains were used for determining the genetic basis of body color phenotypes. Based on such genetic characterization, we interpreted body color variation of wild flies collected along a latitudinal gradient. Our results are interesting in several respects. First, laboratory selection produced lighter females and also lighter males, in contradiction of the well-known sexual dimorphism in D. melanogaster. The laboratory-selected darker and lighter strains showed lack of phenotypic plasticity, whereas F1flies from reciprocal crosses showed significant levels of phenotypic plasticity. Second, for both sexes, F2phenotypic classes resulting from reciprocal crosses between selected darker and lighter strains fit a two-locus model with a stronger maternal effect in males than in females. Third, changes in continuously varying abdominal melanisation of wild-caught flies were sorted into phenotypic bins of body color phenotypic classes and such data on geographical populations of D. melanogaster are consistent with climatic selection. Thus, we may suggest that for ecological genetic studies, greater emphasis should be laid on the analysis of bins of phenotypic classes of body melanisation in laboratory and wild populations of D. melanogaster.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".