Two-Locus Local Adaptation by Additive or Epistatic Gene Combinations in Autotetraploids Versus Diploids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we present a theoretical comparison of local adaptation between diploid and autotetraploid populations when fitness is determined by either additive or epistatic interactions between alleles at 2 loci. A continent-island model of local adaptation is derived, with 1-way migration from the continent to the island and distinct genotypes adaptive on the continent versus the island. The meiotic component of the model accounts for multivalent formation and the processes of chromosomal gametic disequilibrium and double reduction, which are unique to autotetraploids. Both the adaptability and efficiency of adaptation are investigated, where adaptability asks whether a population adapts and efficiency is the rate of adaptation. With an additive genetic basis to fitness, diploids experience better adaptability and efficiency than autotetraploids. With epistasis, our results indicate a limited parameter space in which autotetraploids have greater adaptability than diploids, but results indicate an interesting difference between adaptability and efficiency of adaptation. Oftentimes, diploids exhibit greater adaptability whereas autotetraploids exhibit greater efficiency of adaptation. These findings provide evidence for the advantage of epistasis within autotetraploids when efficiency of adaptation is of interest. Although autotetraploids are more efficient, under the same conditions and at equilibrium, diploid populations often have higher mean local fitness. Overall, the most ideal situation for autotetraploid local adaptation compared to diploids is when epistasis is strong, mutation is weak, recombination is high, selection is strong, deleterious selection is additive, chromosomal gametic disequilibrium is present, and double reduction is absent.
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".