MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313829708 · doi:10.1093/evolut/qpac025

Repeated genetic divergence plays a minor role in repeated phenotypic divergence of lake-stream stickleback

2022· article· en· W4313829708 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hilary A. Poore, Yoel E. Stuart, Diana J. Rennison, Marius Roesti, Andrew P. Hendry, Daniel I. Bolnick, Catherine L. Peichel

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGasterosteusBiologySticklebackParallel evolutionEvolutionary biologyPhenotypePhenotypic traitSelection (genetic algorithm)Quantitative trait locusAdaptation (eye)Gene flowEcological speciationGenetic architectureReplicateTraitGeneticsGenetic variationGenePhylogeneticsFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have shown that the repeated evolution of similar phenotypes in response to similar ecological conditions (here "parallel evolution") often occurs through mutations in the same genes. However, many previous studies have focused on known candidate genes in a limited number of systems. Thus, the question of how often parallel phenotypic evolution is due to parallel genetic changes remains open. Here, we used quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping in F2 intercrosses between lake and stream threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) from four independent watersheds on Vancouver Island, Canada to determine whether the same QTL underlie divergence in the same phenotypes across, between, and within watersheds. We find few parallel QTL, even in independent crosses from the same watershed or for phenotypes that have diverged in parallel. These findings suggest that different mutations can lead to similar phenotypes. The low genetic repeatability observed in these lake-stream systems contrasts with the higher genetic repeatability observed in other stickleback systems. We speculate that differences in evolutionary history, gene flow, and/or the strength and direction of selection might explain these differences in genetic parallelism and emphasize that more work is needed to move beyond documenting genetic parallelism to identifying the underlying causes.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207