MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304203211 · doi:10.1002/ajb2.16083

An exploration into the conversion of dominance to additive genetic variance in contrasting environments

2022· article· en· W4304203211 on OpenAlexafffund
Cameron P. So, Mia M. Sibolibane, Arthur E. Weis

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGenetic variationVariance (accounting)AllelePopulationTraitDominance (genetics)Evolutionary biologyGenetic modelAdditive genetic effectsStatisticsGeneticsHeritabilityMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE: The evolutionary response of a trait to environmental change depends upon the level of additive genetic variance. It has been long argued that sustained selection will tend to deplete additive genetic variance as favored alleles approach fixation. Non-additive genetic variance, due to interactions among alleles within and between loci, does not immediately contribute to an evolutionary response. However, shifts in the allele frequencies within and between interacting loci may convert non-additive variance into additive variance. Here we consider the possibility that an environmental shift may alter allelic interactions in ways that convert dominance into additive genetic variance. METHODS: We grew a pedigreed population of Brassica rapa in greenhouse and field conditions. The field conditions mimicked agricultural conditions from which the base population was drawn, while the greenhouse featured benign conditions. We used Bayesian models to estimate the additive, dominance, and maternal components of quantitative genetic variance. We also estimated genetic correlations across environments using parental breeding values. RESULTS: Although the additive genetic variance was elevated in the greenhouse condition, no consistent pattens emerged that would indicate a conversion of dominance variance. The unusually low genetic variance and broad confidence intervals for the variance estimates obtained through this analysis preclude definitive interpretations. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are needed to determine whether between-environment changes in additive genetic variance can be traced to conversion of dominance variance.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207