MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468381698 · doi:10.1111/mec.13713

On the origin of asexual species by means of hybridization and drift

2016· letter· en· W2468381698 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Hartfield

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several species of asexuals appear to have existed for millions of years. This is despite the prevalent view that natural selection is weakened without gene exchange, which should cause these organisms to rapidly go extinct. In theory, one can identify evolutionary long-lived asexuals from their allelic sequence divergence, also known as the 'Meselson effect', which leads to elevated within-individual diversity. Yet evidence that this phenomenon exists is mixed. Furthermore, several confounding factors can lead to similar outcomes, including the formation of asexual species by hybridization. Disentangling these factors has proved to be tricky, but Ament-Velásquez et al. (2016) have provided an elegant solution in this issue of Molecular Ecology. They studied transcriptomes and mitochondrial DNA from the Lineus genus of nemertean worms, which contains both sexual and asexual types, to first show that the asexual L. pseudolactus is a hybrid between a sexual and an asexual species. After isolating out diversity arising from this hybridization, they find subsequent evidence for the Meselson effect. This study sets a new standard for differentiating between the complex causes and consequences of asexuality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0240.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.193
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207