MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903140862 · doi:10.1111/jeb.13409

Identification of a novel sperm class and its role in fertilization in <i>Drosophila</i>

2018· article· en· W2903140862 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua H. M. Alpern, Michelle M. Asselin, Amanda J. Moehring

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyDrosophila pseudoobscuraSperm competitionSpermHuman fertilizationFemale sperm storageEvolutionary biologyDrosophila (subgenus)ZoologyCompetition (biology)Sexual selectionGeneticsEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many species, males have evolved to produce a sterile sperm (parasperm) in conjunction with fertilizing sperm (eusperm). Here, we document evidence of males depositing two morphologically distinct types of parasperm (1 and 2) into the female reproductive tract in Drosophila pseudoobscura. These parasperm differ in length, shape, amount produced, amount in long-term storage and may have separate roles in ensuring male fertilization success. Although both parasperm types protect eusperm from female spermicides, only parasperm 2, which has a corkscrew shape, is associated with sperm competition. Increased production of parasperm 2 is also negatively correlated with the eusperm and parasperm 1 production. Thus, selection may be acting on parasperm production in the presence of sperm competition. Our findings show how both sperm competition and cryptic female choice may be acting in conjunction to influence the evolution of ejaculate composition. Our identification and characterization of two distinct parasperm morphs will enhance the ability for further evaluation of parasperm's role in fertilization.

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 score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207