Biology of Coital Behavior: Looking Through the Lens of Mathematical Genomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that genetics and epigenetics regulate mating behavior across multiple species. Previous studies have generally focused on the signaling pathways involved and spatial distribution of the associated receptors. However a thorough quantitative characterization of the receptors involved may offer deeper insight into mating behavioral patterns. Here oxytocin, arginine-vasopressin 1a, dopamine 1, and dopamine 2 receptors were investigated across 76 vertebrate species. The receptor sequences were characterized by polarity-based randomness, amino acid frequency-based Shannon entropy and Shannon sequence variability, intrinsic protein disorder, binding affinity, stability and pathogenicity of homology-based SNPs, structural and physicochemical features. Hierarchical clustering of species was derived based on structural and physicochemical features of the four receptor sequences separately, which eventually led to proximal relationships among 29 species. Humans were found to be significantly distant phylogenetically from the prairie voles, a representative of monogamous species based on coital behavior. Furthermore, the mouse (polygamous), the prairie deer mouse (polygamous), and the prairie vole (monogamous) although being proximally related (based on quantitative genomics of receptors), differed in their coital behavioral pattern, mostly, due to behavioral epigenetic regulations. This study adds a perspective that receptor genomics does not directly translate to behavioral patterns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".