Adaptive, caste-specific changes to recombination rates in a thelytokous honeybee population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to clone oneself has clear benefits—no need for mate hunting or dilution of one's genome in offspring. It is therefore unsurprising that some populations of haplo-diploid social insects have evolved thelytokous parthenogenesis—the virgin birth of a female. But thelytokous parthenogenesis has a downside: the loss of heterozygosity (LoH) as a consequence of genetic recombination. LoH in haplo-diploid insects can be highly deleterious because female sex determination often relies on heterozygosity at sex-determining loci. The two female castes of the Cape honeybee,Apis mellifera capensis, differ in their mode of reproduction. While workers always reproduce thelytokously, queens always mate and reproduce sexually. For workers, it is important to reduce the frequency of recombination so as to not produce offspring that are homozygous. Here, we ask whether recombination rates differ between Cape workers and Cape queens that we experimentally manipulated to reproduce thelytokously. We tested our hypothesis that Cape workers have evolved mechanisms that restrain genetic recombination, whereas queens have no need for such mechanisms because they reproduce sexually. Using a combination of microsatellite genotyping and whole-genome sequencing we find that a reduction in recombination is confined to workers only.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".