MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123842165 · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuab006

The population genetics of ploidy change in unicellular fungi

2021· review· en· W3123842165 on OpenAlexafffund
Aleeza C. Gerstein, Nathaniel P. Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPloidyBiologyGeneticsPopulationNatural selectionChromosomeMutation AccumulationSelection (genetic algorithm)Evolutionary biologyGenomePopulation geneticsMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in ploidy are a significant type of genetic variation, describing the number of chromosome sets per cell. Ploidy evolves in natural populations, clinical populations, and lab experiments, particularly in unicellular fungi. Predicting how ploidy will evolve has proven difficult, despite a long history of theoretical work on this topic, as it is often unclear why one ploidy state outperforms another. Here, we review what is known about contemporary ploidy evolution in diverse fungal species through the lens of population genetics. As with typical genetic variants, ploidy evolution depends on the rate that new ploidy states arise by mutation, natural selection on alternative ploidy states, and random genetic drift. However, ploidy variation also has unique impacts on evolution, with the potential to alter chromosomal stability, the rate and patterns of point mutation, and the nature of selection on all loci in the genome. We discuss how ploidy evolution depends on these general and unique factors and highlight areas where additional experimental evidence is required to comprehensively explain the ploidy transitions observed in the field, the clinic, and the lab.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology ReviewsSame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207