Environmental complexity and the purging of deleterious alleles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual interactions among adults can generate selection on both males and females with genome-wide consequences. Sexual selection through males is one component of this selection that has been argued to play an important role in purging deleterious alleles. A common technique to assess the influence of sexual selection is by a comparison of experimental evolution under enforced monogamy versus polygamy. Mixed results from past studies may be due to the use of highly simplified laboratory conditions that alter the nature of sexual interactions. Here, we examine the rate of purging of 22 gene disruption mutations in experimental polygamous populations of Drosophila melanogaster in each of two mating environments: a simple, high-density environment (i.e., typical fly vials), and a lower density, more spatially complex environment. Based on past work, we expect sexual interactions in the latter environment to result in stronger selection in both sexes. Consistent with this, we find that mutations tend to be purged more quickly in populations evolving in complex environments. We discuss possible mechanisms by which environmental complexity might modulate the rate at which deleterious alleles are purged and putatively ascribe a role for sexual interactions in explaining the treatment differences in our experiment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".