The maintenance of genetic diversity under host–parasite coevolution in finite, structured populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As a corollary to the Red Queen hypothesis, host–parasite coevolution has been hypothesized to maintain genetic variation in both species. Recent theoretical work, however, suggests that reciprocal natural selection alone is insufficient to maintain variation at individual loci. As highlighted by our brief review of the theoretical literature, models of host–parasite coevolution often vary along multiple axes (e.g. inclusion of ecological feedbacks or abiotic selection mosaics), complicating a comprehensive understanding of the effects of interacting evolutionary processes on diversity. Here we develop a series of comparable models to explore the effect of interactions between spatial structures and antagonistic coevolution on genetic diversity. Using a matching alleles model in finite populations connected by migration, we find that, in contrast to panmictic populations, coevolution in a spatially structured environment can maintain genetic variation relative to neutral expectations with migration alone. These results demonstrate that geographic structure is essential for understanding the effect of coevolution on biological diversity. Abstract Overview of the six matching alleles models considered and their main results for the maintenance of host genetic diversity. Bolded text in the top half of the figure indicates results in which coevolution maintained diversity, either transiently (relative to neutrality) or in the long term. The bottom half of the figure highlights model features, including host–parasite coevolution, spatial set-up and time scale. In the coevolutionary model, hosts and parasites undergo both extrinsic birth and death as well as death and subsequent birth resulting from successful infection. Geography is defined as one of three options: one patch, two patches with migration and island–mainland with migration. Time scale is either continuous or discrete, with models correspondingly specified as either Moran or Wright–Fisher models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".