Phenotypic dominance emerges from activity fitness functions and molecular interactions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mendelian genetics provides us with a framework for studying allelic dominance relationships at a locus at the phenotypic level. These dominance relationships result from different molecular factors, including the mapping of molecular activity onto fitness. For homomeric proteins, physical interactions between alleles provide a mechanism by which 1 allele can have a dominant effect on the activity of the other. Here, we refer to the effect of these interactions as molecular dominance and examine how they determine total protein activity and contribute to phenotypic dominance. The relative impact of such molecular dominance effects depends on the proportion of subunits that heteromerize relative to those that form homomers. In addition, we show how the effect of physical interactions on phenotypic dominance depends on the function linking protein activity to fitness. Our results show the complex relationships between molecular and phenotypic dominance and highlight the fundamental difference in dominance landscapes for monomeric and homomeric proteins.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it