No evidence of positive assortative mating for genetic quality in fruit flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In sexual populations, the effectiveness of selection will depend on how gametes combine with respect to genetic quality. If gametes with deleterious alleles are likely to combine with one another, deleterious genetic variation can be more easily purged by selection. Assortative mating, where there is a positive correlation between parents in a phenotype of interest such as body size, is often observed in nature, but does not necessarily reveal how gametes ultimately combine with respect to genetic quality itself. We manipulated genetic quality in fruit fly populations using an inbreeding scheme designed to provide an unbiased measure of mating patterns. While inbred flies had substantially reduced reproductive success, their gametes did not combine with those of other inbred flies more often than expected by chance, indicating a lack of positive assortative mating. Instead, we detected a negative correlation in genetic quality between parents, i.e. disassortative mating, which diminished with age. This pattern is expected to reduce the genetic variance for fitness, diminishing the effectiveness of selection. We discuss how mechanisms of sexual selection could produce a pattern of disassortative mating. Our study highlights that sexual selection has the potential to either increase or decrease genetic load.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".