Non-adaptive molecular evolution of seminal fluid proteins in drosophila
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seminal fluid proteins (SFPs) are a group of reproductive proteins that are amongst the most evolutionarily divergent known. As SFPs can impact male and female fitness, these proteins have been proposed to evolve under post-copulatory sexual selection (PCSS). However, the fast change of the SFPs can also result from non-adaptive evolution, and the extent to which selective constraints prevent SFPs rapid evolution remains unknown. Using intra- and interspecific sequence information, along with genomics and functional data, we examine the molecular evolution of approximately 300 SFPs in Drosophila. We found that 50-57% of the SFP genes, depending on the population examined, are evolving under relaxed selection. Only 7-12% showed evidence of positive selection, with no evidence supporting other forms of PCSS, and 35-37% of the SFP genes were selectively constrained. Further, despite associations of positive selection with gene location on the X chromosome and protease activity, the analysis of additional genomic and functional features revealed their lack of influence on SFPs evolving under positive selection. Our results highlight a lack of sufficient evidence to claim that most SFPs are driven to evolve rapidly by PCSS while identifying genomic and functional attributes that influence different modes of SFPs evolution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".