MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344525205 · doi:10.1111/evo.12931

Color phenotypes are under similar genetic control in two distantly related species of <i>Timema</i> stick insect

2016· article· en· W2344525205 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aaron A. Comeault, Clarissa F. de Carvalho, Stuart R. Dennis, Víctor Soria‐Carrasco, Patrik Nosil

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyEvolutionary biologyLinkage disequilibriumGeneticsPhenotypePhenotypic traitGenetic architectureAlleleHaplotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecology and genetics are both of general interest to evolutionary biologists as they can influence the phenotypic and genetic response to selection. The stick insects Timema podura and Timema cristinae exhibit a green/melanistic body color polymorphism that is subject to different ecologically based selective regimes in the two species. Here, we describe aspects of the genetics of this color polymorphism in T. podura, and compare this to previous results in T. cristinae. We first show that similar color phenotypes of the two species cluster in phenotypic space. We then use genome-wide association mapping to show that in both species, color is controlled by few loci, dominance relationships between color alleles are the same, and SNPs associated with color phenotypes colocalize to the same linkage group. Regions within this linkage group that harbor genetic variants associated with color exhibit elevated linkage disequilibrium relative to genome wide expectations, but more strongly so in T. cristinae. We use these results to discuss predictions regarding how the genetics of color could influence levels of phenotypic and genetic variation that segregate within and between populations of T. podura and T. cristinae, drawing parallels with other organisms.

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 score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207