Data from: Widespread genetic incompatibilities between first-step mutations during parallel adaptation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to a common environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractIndependently evolving populations may adapt to similar selection pressures via different genetic changes. The interactions between such changes, such as in a hybrid individual, can inform us about what course adaptation may follow and allow us to determine whether gene flow would be facilitated or hampered following secondary contact. We used Saccharomyces cerevisiae to measure the genetic interactions between first-step mutations that independently evolved in the same biosynthetic pathway following exposure to the fungicide nystatin. We found that genetic interactions are prevalent and predominantly negative, with the majority of mutations causing lower growth when combined in a double mutant than when alone as a single mutant (sign epistasis). The prevalence of sign epistasis is surprising given the small number of mutations tested and runs counter to expectations for mutations arising in a single biosynthetic pathway in the face of a simple selective pressure. Furthermore, in one third of pairwise interactions, the double mutant grew less well than either single mutant (reciprocal sign epistasis). The observation of reciprocal sign epistasis among these first adaptive mutations arising in the same genetic background indicates that partial postzygotic reproductive isolation could evolve rapidly between populations under similar selective pressures, even with only a single genetic change in each. The nature of the epistatic relationships was sensitive, however, to the level of drug stress in the assay conditions, as many double mutants became fitter than the single mutants at higher concentrations of nystatin. We discuss the implications of these results both for our understanding of epistatic interactions among beneficial mutations in the same biochemical pathway and for speciation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".