MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396826477 · doi:10.1093/genetics/iyae080

Deleterious mutation/epimutation–selection balance with and without inbreeding: a population (epi)genetics model

2024· article· en· W4396826477 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregory Chernomas, Cortland K. Griswold

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEpigeneticsBiologyInbreedingGeneticsDNA methylationMutationEvolutionary biologyGenetic variationPopulationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenetics in the form of DNA methylation and other processes is an established property of genotypes and a focus of empirical research. Yet, there remain fundamental gaps in the evolutionary theory of epigenetics. To support a comprehensive understanding of epigenetics, this paper investigates theoretically the combined effects of deleterious mutation and epimutation with and without inbreeding. Both spontaneous epimutation and paramutation are considered to cover a broader range of epigenetic phenomena. We find that inbreeding generally reduces the amount of segregating deleterious genetic and epigenetic variation at equilibrium, although interestingly inbreeding can also increase the amount of deleterious genetic or epigenetic variation. Furthermore, we also demonstrate that epimutation indirectly can cause increased or decreased deleterious genetic variation at equilibrium relative to classic expectations, which is particularly evident when paramutation is occurring. With the addition of deleterious epimutation, there may be significantly increased purging of deleterious variation in more inbred populations and a significantly increased amount of segregating deleterious variation in more outbred populations, with notable exceptions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207