Males, Outcrossing, and Sexual Selection in <i>Caenorhabditis</i> Nematodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Males of Caenorhabditis elegans provide a crucial practical tool in the laboratory, but, as the rarer and more finicky sex, have not enjoyed the same depth of research attention as hermaphrodites. Males, however, have attracted the attention of evolutionary biologists who are exploiting the C. elegans system to test longstanding hypotheses about sexual selection, sexual conflict, transitions in reproductive mode, and genome evolution, as well as to make new discoveries about Caenorhabditis organismal biology. Here, we review the evolutionary concepts and data informed by study of males of C. elegans and other Caenorhabditis. We give special attention to the important role of sperm cells as a mediator of inter-male competition and male–female conflict that has led to drastic trait divergence across species, despite exceptional phenotypic conservation in many other morphological features. We discuss the evolutionary forces important in the origins of reproductive mode transitions from males being common (gonochorism: females and males) to rare (androdioecy: hermaphrodites and males) and the factors that modulate male frequency in extant androdioecious populations, including the potential influence of selective interference, host–pathogen coevolution, and mutation accumulation. Further, we summarize the consequences of males being common vs rare for adaptation and for trait divergence, trait degradation, and trait dimorphism between the sexes, as well as for molecular evolution of the genome, at both micro-evolutionary and macro-evolutionary timescales. We conclude that C. elegans male biology remains underexploited and that future studies leveraging its extensive experimental resources are poised to discover novel biology and to inform profound questions about animal function and evolution.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".