Using genome scans to identify genes used repeatedly for adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptation occurring in similar genes or genomic regions in distinct lineages provides evolutionary biologists with a glimpse at the fundamental opportunities for and constraints to diversification. With the widespread availability of high-throughput sequencing technologies and the development of population genetic methods to identify the genetic basis of adaptation, studies have begun to compare the evidence for adaptation at the molecular level among distinct lineages. However, methods to study repeated adaptation are often oriented toward genome-wide testing to identify a set of genes with signatures of repeated use, rather than evaluating the significance at the level of an individual gene. In this study, we propose PicMin, a novel statistical method derived from the theory of order statistics that can test for repeated molecular evolution to estimate significance at the level of an individual gene, using the results of genome scans. This method is generalizable to any number of lineages and, indeed, statistical power to detect repeated adaptation increases with the number of lineages that have signals of repeated adaptation of a given gene in multiple lineages. An implementation of the method written for R can be downloaded from https://github.com/TBooker/PicMin.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".