MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391282750 · doi:10.1093/evolut/qpae016

Effects of selfing on the evolution of sexual reproduction

2024· article· en· W4391282750 on OpenAlexafffund
Kuangyi Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSelfingBiologyAsexual reproductionSexual reproductionReproductionPopulationEvolutionary biologyEvolution of sexual reproductionExperimental evolutionSelection (genetic algorithm)OutcrossingMating systemGeneticsEcologyGeneMatingDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants exhibit diverse breeding systems, with populations capable of outcrossing, selfing, and/or asexual reproduction. However, interactions between the three reproductive pathways remain not fully clear. Sexual reproduction introduces segregation and recombination, but incurs several costs. Selfing can affect the relative costs and benefits of sexual vs. asexual reproduction. Building population genetic models, I explore how selfing affects the evolution of a sexual reproduction rate modifier via (a) indirect selection due to segregation, (b) indirect selection from changes in recombination rates, and (c) selection from the cost of meiosis and mate limitation. The dominant selective force mediating the evolution of sex is found to vary with the rate of sexual reproduction and selfing, but selective force (a) and (c) are generally stronger than selective force (b). A modifier enhancing sexual reproduction tends to be favored by indirect selection generated by partially recessive, small-effect deleterious mutations, while hindered by highly recessive lethal mutations. Overall, evolution toward higher sexual reproduction is hindered at low sexual reproduction rates and intermediate selfing rates, but favored under high selfing rates. The results suggest that asexual reproduction may precede the evolution of selfing and offer insights into the evolution of mechanisms reducing geitonogamy in partially clonal populations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207