MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208924281 · doi:10.3390/genes12111703

Intraspecific Genetic Variation for Behavioral Isolation Loci in Drosophila

2021· article· en· W3208924281 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica A. Pardy, Samia Lahib, Mohamed A. F. Noor, Amanda J. Moehring

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyIsolation (microbiology)Reproductive isolationEvolutionary biologyDrosophila (subgenus)Quantitative trait locusGeneticsIntraspecific competitionGenetic variationGenetic algorithmIdentification (biology)PopulationGeneZoologyEcologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral isolation is considered to be the primary mode of species isolation, and the lack of identification of individual genes for behavioral isolation has hindered our ability to address fundamental questions about the process of speciation. One of the major questions that remains about behavioral isolation is whether the genetic basis of isolation between species also varies within a species. Indeed, the extent to which genes for isolation may vary across a population is rarely explored. Here, we bypass the problem of individual gene identification by addressing this question using a quantitative genetic comparison. Using strains from eight different populations of Drosophila simulans, we genetically mapped the genomic regions contributing to behavioral isolation from their closely related sibling species, Drosophila mauritiana. We found extensive variation in the size of contribution of different genomic regions to behavioral isolation among the different strains, in the location of regions contributing to isolation, and in the ability to redetect loci when retesting the same strain.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207