MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118328131 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1914889118

Fitness maps to a large-effect locus in introduced stickleback populations

2021· article· en· W3118328131 on OpenAlexafffund
Dolph Schluter, Kerry B. Marchinko, Matthew E. Arnegard, Haili Zhang, Shannon D. Brady, Felicity C. Jones, Michael A. Bell, David M. Kingsley

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthGovernment of CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsSticklebackBiologyAlleleLocus (genetics)PopulationGeneticsAllele frequencyOffspringDominance (genetics)Evolutionary biologyGenetic architectureStabilizing selectionQuantitative trait locusGenetic variationGeneDemographyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance The role of mutations of large effect in adaptive evolution is a question of enduring interest. Large-effect mutations were once seen as unlikely contributors to adaptation, but we now have numerous examples. A major shortcoming of the evidence is the lack of information on fitness effects of mutations. We conducted a quantitative trait locus study that mapped fitness in an experimental field population of stickleback to a large-effect gene, Ectodysplasin ( Eda ). We compared this result with allele frequency change at the gene in a young lake population, which also revealed strong natural selection and large fitness effects of the Eda gene and/or linked genes. Selection on ancient genetic variants may increase the prevalence of large-effect fitness variants in adaptive 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207