Phenotypic plasticity as a function of genetic polymorphism: thermal dominance reversal in <i>Drosophila</i> species with contrasting melanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phenotypic plasticity is often seen as an alternative adaptive strategy to genetic polymorphism, especially in response to rapid environmental changes. Indeed, a link between plasticity and heterozygosity, i.e. the measure of polymorphism, has previously been dismissed. Here, we compare the thermal plasticity of abdominal pigmentation in eight Drosophila species, four belonging to the melanogaster species group and four to the montium group. Despite a conserved developmental pathway for melanin synthesis, the genetic architecture of its variation has significantly evolved, being polygenic in most species (like D. melanogaster ) and Mendelian or invariable in others. By investigating the thermal plasticity of this trait in species with distinct architectures, we show the degree of plasticity to strongly associate with heterozygosity. Plasticity was resurrected in hybrids between species with no plastic responses but with contrasting melanism, and was higher in heterozygotes in species with simple Mendelian polymorphism. In plastic cases, pigmentation dominance is reversed depending on the developmental temperature. We propose simple genetic models with empirical molecular support to explain this link between phenotypic plasticity and genetic polymorphism. The relationship between these two phenomena, and the impact of each on the evolution of the other, may be more relevant than it is currently appreciated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".