MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517788707 · doi:10.1002/ece3.2367

Adaptive and neutral markers both show continent‐wide population structure of mountain pine beetle (<i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i>)

2016· article· en· W2517788707 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philip D. Batista, Jasmine K. Janes, Celia K. Boone, Brent W. Murray, Felix A. H. Sperling

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersGenome AlbertaMcGill UniversityAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates Bio SolutionsGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsMountain pine beetleBiologyPopulationSingle-nucleotide polymorphismEvolutionary biologyGenetic structureRange (aeronautics)GeneticsGenetic markerEcologyGenetic variationGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessments of population genetic structure and demographic history have traditionally been based on neutral markers while explicitly excluding adaptive markers. In this study, we compared the utility of putatively adaptive and neutral single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for inferring mountain pine beetle population structure across its geographic range. Both adaptive and neutral SNPs, and their combination, allowed range-wide structure to be distinguished and delimited a population that has recently undergone range expansion across northern British Columbia and Alberta. Using an equal number of both adaptive and neutral SNPs revealed that adaptive SNPs resulted in a stronger correlation between sampled populations and inferred clustering. Our results suggest that adaptive SNPs should not be excluded prior to analysis from neutral SNPs as a combination of both marker sets resulted in better resolution of genetic differentiation between populations than either marker set alone. These results demonstrate the utility of adaptive loci for resolving population genetic structure in a nonmodel organism.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207