Sexual selection and the nonrandom union of gametes: retesting for assortative mating by fitness in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While numerous theoretical population genetic models predict that mating assortatively by genetic "quality" will enhance the efficiency of purging of deleterious mutations and/or the spread of beneficial alleles in the gene pool, empirical examples of assortative mating by quality are surprisingly rare and often inconclusive. Here, we set out to examine whether fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) engage in assortative mating by body-size phenotype, a composite trait strongly associated with both reproductive success and survival and is considered a reliable indicator of natural genetic quality. Male and female flies of different body-size classes (large and small) were obtained under typical culture conditions, which allows us to use standing variation of body size without involving artificial nutritional manipulation, so that their interactions and mating patterns could be measured. While flies did not exhibit assortative courtship behavior, when patterns of offspring production were analyzed, it was found that individuals produced more offspring with partners of similar quality/body size, resulting produced from disassortative mating. Together, these results validate theoretical predictions that sexual selection can enhance the effects of natural selection and consequently the rate of adaptive evolution in a positive correlation in fitness between mates. Subsequent assays of offspring fitness indicated that assortative mating produced sons and daughters that had greater or equal reproductive success than those.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".