The influence of environmental conditions on sex determination in the blue mussel <i>Mytilus edulis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The factors affecting sex determination remain largely unknown for most bivalve species. Environmental factors, such as temperature, are known to influence sex determination in some species, and this has been hypothesized for the mussel Mytilus edulis, but not experimentally validated yet. Adult exposure to different environmental conditions during gametogenesis, which occurs seasonally, may also affect offspring phenotype, including sex determination. Intergenerational carryover effects have been reported in bivalves, but the impact of parental exposures on offspring sex determination has not been examined so far. To address these questions, artificial fertilizations were performed on individuals collected in three different years and their embryos were reared at three different temperatures to specifically test if the environment influences offspring sex ratio through effects on parental developing gametes and/or on developing embryos. The analysis of 1938 embryos from 25 crosses revealed a significant effect of both temperature treatments and sampling years on the proportion of females. However, the overall variation is mostly explained by the “temperature treatment × sampling years” interaction. Taken together, our results suggested that interannual environmental variations experienced by the parents (during gametogenesis) and embryo (during development) can influence the sex of the offspring in M. edulis.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".