Shared Selection and Genetic Architecture Drive Strikingly Repeatable Evolution in Long-Term Experimental Hybrid Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree to which evolution repeats itself has implications regarding the major forces driving evolution and the potential for evolutionary biology to be a predictive (vs. solely historical) science. To understand the factors that control evolutionary repeatability, we experimentally evolved four replicate hybrid populations of sunflowers at natural sites for up to 14 years and tracked ancestry across the genome. We found that there was very strong negative selection against introgressed ancestry in several chromosomes, but positive selection for introgressed ancestry in one chromosome. Further, the strength of selection was influenced by recombination rate. High recombination regions had lower selection against introgressed ancestry due to more frequent recombination away from incompatible backgrounds. Strikingly, evolution was highly parallel across replicates, with shared selection driving 88% of variance in introgressed allele frequency change. Parallel evolution was driven by both high levels of sustained linkage in introgressed alleles and strong selection on large-effect quantitative trait loci. This work highlights the repeatability of evolution through hybridization and confirms the central roles that natural selection, genomic architecture, and recombination play in the process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".