Data from: Reduced genetic variance among high fitness individuals: inferring stabilizing selection on male sexual displays in D. serrata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directional selection is prevalent in nature yet phenotypes tend to remain relatively constant, suggesting a limit to trait evolution. However, the genetic basis of this limit is unresolved. Given widespread pleiotropy, opposing selection on a trait may arise from the effects of the underlying alleles on other traits under selection, generating net stabilizing selection on trait genetic variance. These pleiotropic costs of trait exaggeration may arise through any number of other traits, making them hard to detect in phenotypic analyses. Stabilizing selection can be inferred, however, if genetic variance is greater among low compared to high fitness individuals. We extend a recently suggested approach to provide a direct test of a difference in genetic variance for a suite of cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) in Drosophila serrata. Despite strong directional sexual selection on these traits, genetic variance differed between high and low fitness individuals and was greater among the low fitness males for seven of eight CHCs, significantly more than expected by chance. Univariate tests of a difference in genetic variance were non-significant but likely have low power. Our results suggest that further CHC exaggeration in D. serrata in response to sexual selection is limited by pleiotropic costs mediated through other traits.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
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".