Pervasive antagonistic interactions among hybrid incompatibility loci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species barriers, expressed as hybrid inviability and sterility, are often due to epistatic interactions between divergent loci from two lineages. Theoretical models indicate that the strength, direction, and complexity of these genetic interactions can strongly affect the expression of interspecific reproductive isolation and the rates at which new species evolve. Nonetheless, empirical analyses have not quantified the frequency with which loci are involved in interactions affecting hybrid fitness, and whether these loci predominantly interact synergistically or antagonistically, or preferentially involve loci that have strong individual effects on hybrid fitness. We systematically examined the prevalence of interactions between pairs of short chromosomal regions from one species (Solanum habrochaites) co-introgressed into a heterospecific genetic background (Solanum lycopersicum), using lines containing pairwise combinations of 15 chromosomal segments from S. habrochaites in the background of S. lycopersicum (i.e., 95 double introgression lines). We compared the strength of hybrid incompatibility (either pollen sterility or seed sterility) expressed in each double introgression line to the expected additive effect of its two component single introgressions. We found that epistasis was common among co-introgressed regions. Interactions for hybrid dysfunction were substantially more prevalent in pollen fertility compared to seed fertility phenotypes, and were overwhelmingly antagonistic (i.e., double hybrids were less unfit than expected from additive single introgression effects). This pervasive antagonism is expected to attenuate the rate at which hybrid infertility accumulates among lineages over time (i.e., giving diminishing returns as more reproductive isolation loci accumulate), as well as decouple patterns of accumulation of sterility loci and hybrid incompatibility phenotypes. This decoupling effect might explain observed differences between pollen and seed fertility in their fit to theoretical predictions of the accumulation of isolation loci, including the 'snowball' effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".