Genomic response to sex-separated gene pools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Males and females experience differences in the strength and direction of selection but discerning the type of genes that are targets of sex differences in selection is complicated by their shared genome. We used experimental evolution in Drosophila melanogaster to partially separate the gene pools of males and females for 130 generations. In six replicate populations, we forced one pool of genetically variable Chromosome 2s to experience patrilinear inheritance (segregating like a Y-chromosome) and male-limited selection. The alternative pool segregated like an X-chromosome and experienced female-biased selection. This allowed alleles which are differentially selected for between the sexes to diverge between these pools, enabling us to gain insight into the type of genes subject to such selection. We find that genes which diverge between these pools have an elevated intersexual genetic correlation( r MF ) for expression on average, consistent with the idea that high genetic correlations may hinder sex-specific adaptation under normal inheritance. Diverged genes were also enriched for moderately male-biased genes whereas female-biased genes were underrepresented. At the SNP level, we find an overrepresentation of diverged SNPs involved in splicing or occurring in the 5’UTR and an underrepresentation of missense or synonymous SNPs, suggesting sex differences in selection for isoform usage.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Experimental evolution study of sex-specific selection in Drosophila.
The preprint studies sex-specific selection and genomic divergence in fruit flies, not research practice.
Experimental evolution of sex-separated gene pools in Drosophila; domain evolutionary genetics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".