Data from: Dietary stress does not strengthen selection against single deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stress is generally thought to increase the strength of selection, although empirical results are mixed and general conclusions are difficult because data are limited. Here we compare the fitness effects of nine independent recessive mutations in Drosophila melanogaster in a high- and low-dietary-stress environment, estimating the strength of selection on these mutations arising from both a competitive measure of male reproductive success and productivity (female fecundity and the subsequent survival to adulthood of her offspring). The effect of stress on male reproductive success has not been addressed previously for individual loci and is of particular interest with respect to the alignment of natural and sexual selection. Our results do not support the hypothesis that stress increases the efficacy of selection arising from either fitness component. Results concerning the alignment of natural and sexual selection were mixed, although data are limited. In the low-stress environment, selection on mating success and productivity were concordant for five of nine mutations (four out of four when restricted to those with significant or near-significant productivity effects), whereas in the high-stress environment, selection aligned for seven of nine mutations (two out of two when restricted to those having significant productivity effects). General conclusions as to the effects of stress on the strength of selection and the alignment of natural and sexual selection await data from additional mutations, fitness components and stressors.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.026 |
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".