Impacts of pleiotropy and migration on repeated genetic adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Observations of genetically repeated evolution (repeatability) in complex organisms are incongruent with the Fisher-Orr model, which implies that repeated use of the same gene should be rare when mutations are pleiotropic (i.e., affect multiple traits). When spatially divergent selection occurs in the presence of migration, mutations of large effect are more strongly favoured, and hence repeatability is more likely, but it is unclear whether this observation is limited by pleiotropy. Here, we explore this question using individual-based simulations of a two-patch model incorporating multiple quantitative traits governed by mutations with pleiotropic effects. We explore the relationship between fitness trade-offs and repeatability by varying the alignment between mutation effect and spatial variation in trait optima. While repeatability decreases with increasing trait dimensionality, trade-offs in mutation effects on traits do not strongly limit the contribution of a locus of large effect to repeated adaptation, particularly under increased migration. These results suggest that repeatability will be more pronounced for local rather than global adaptation. Whereas pleiotropy limits repeatability in a single-population model, when there is local adaptation with gene flow, repeatability can occur if some loci are able to produce alleles of large effect, even when there are pleiotropic trade-offs. Article summary Classical evolutionary theory predicts that genetically repeated evolution should be vanishingly rare in organisms where mutations affect multiple traits. In this article, we use simulations to study such pleiotropic mutations, and explore their effects on local adaptation in two patches under divergent selection. We find that migration between patches increases the likelihood of repeated evolution, even when there are fitness trade-offs imposed by pleiotropy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".