MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400577795 · doi:10.1093/genetics/iyae111

Impacts of pleiotropy and migration on repeated genetic adaptation

2024· article· en· W4400577795 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Battlay, Sam Yeaman, Kathryn A. Hodgins

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsBiologyPleiotropyGeneticsAdaptation (eye)Evolutionary biologyPhenotypeGeneNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observations of genetically repeated evolution (repeatability) in complex organisms are incongruent with the Fisher-Orr model, which implies that repeated use of the same gene should be rare when mutations are pleiotropic (i.e. affect multiple traits). When spatially divergent selection occurs in the presence of migration, mutations of large effect are more strongly favored, and hence, repeatability is more likely, but it is unclear whether this observation is limited by pleiotropy. Here, we explore this question using individual-based simulations of a two-patch model incorporating multiple quantitative traits governed by mutations with pleiotropic effects. We explore the relationship between fitness trade-offs and repeatability by varying the alignment between mutation effect and spatial variation in trait optima. While repeatability decreases with increasing trait dimensionality, trade-offs in mutation effects on traits do not strongly limit the contribution of a locus of large effect to repeated adaptation, particularly under increased migration. These results suggest that repeatability will be more pronounced for local rather than global adaptation. Whereas pleiotropy limits repeatability in a single-population model, when there is local adaptation with gene flow, repeatability can occur if some loci are able to produce alleles of large effect, even when there are pleiotropic trade-offs.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207