Sex and tissue‐specific evolution of developmental plasticity in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Developmental plasticity influences the size of adult tissues in insects. Tissues can have unique responses to environmental perturbation during development; however, the prevalence of within species evolution of tissue‐specific developmental plasticity remains unclear. To address this, we studied the effects of temperature and nutrition on wing and femur size in D. melanogaster populations from a temperate and tropical region. Wings were more sensitive to temperature, while wings and femurs were equally responsive to nutrition in both populations and sexes. The temperate population was larger under all conditions, except for femurs of starved females. In line with this, we observed greater femur size plasticity in response to starvation in temperate females, leading to differences in sexual dimorphism between populations such that the slope of the reaction norm of sexual dimorphism in the tropical population was double that of the temperate population. Lastly, we observed a significant trend for steeper slopes of reaction norms in temperate than in tropical females, but not in males. These findings highlight that plasticity divergence between populations can evolve heterogeneously across sexes and tissues and that nutritional plasticity can alter sexual dimorphism in D. melanogaster.
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) | 0.001 | 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".