Dominance reversals: the resolution of genetic conflict and maintenance of genetic variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beneficial reversals of dominance reduce the costs of genetic trade-offs and can enable selection to maintain genetic variation for fitness. Beneficial dominance reversals are characterized by the beneficial allele for a given context (e.g. habitat, developmental stage, trait or sex) being dominant in that context but recessive where deleterious. This context dependence at least partially mitigates the fitness consequence of heterozygotes carrying one non-beneficial allele for their context and can result in balancing selection that maintains alternative alleles. Dominance reversals are theoretically plausible and are supported by mounting empirical evidence. Here, we highlight the importance of beneficial dominance reversals as a mechanism for the mitigation of genetic conflict and review the theory and empirical evidence for them. We identify some areas in need of further research and development and outline three methods that could facilitate the identification of antagonistic genetic variation (dominance ordination, allele-specific expression and allele-specific ATAC-Seq (assay for transposase-accessible chromatin with sequencing)). There is ample scope for the development of new empirical methods as well as reanalysis of existing data through the lens of dominance reversals. A greater focus on this topic will expand our understanding of the mechanisms that resolve genetic conflict and whether they maintain genetic variation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".