Limited evidence of a genetic basis for sex determination in the common creek chub, <i>Semotilus atromaculatus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 Abstract Sexual reproduction is almost universal in the animal kingdom; therefore, each species must have a mechanism for designating sex as male or female. Fish especially have a wide range of sex determining systems. While incompatible systems are thought to increase reproductive isolation, interspecific hybridization is common among groups such as cyprinid minnows, thus, studies such as this can provide insight into hybridization and evolutionary diversification of this clade. In the present study, we aimed to identify a genetic basis for sex determination in the common creek chub ( Semotilus atromaculatus ) using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) data. No sex-associated markers were found by RADSex or a GWAS using GEMMA, however, our Weir and Cockerham locus-specific F ST analysis and discriminant analysis of principal components revealed some genetic differentiation between the sexes at several loci. While no explicit sex determination mechanism has been yet discovered in creek chub, these loci are potential candidates for future studies. This study also highlights technical challenges involved in studying sex determination in species with extremely variable mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".