Asymmetric matching allele models: imperfect matching, stability and the impact of mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asymmetric matching alleles models assume that each parasite genotype specializes on a matching host genotype to a different degree. We study system behavior of a single locus di-allelic asymmetric matching alleles model. Inline with other investigators, we make the counter-intuitive observation that intermediate levels of asymmetric matching lead the parasite genotype with the lowest fitness in it's matching host genotype to, on average, be at majority frequencies. The parasite genotype with the highest fitness in its matching host keeps the frequency of this matching host low, which keeps its own frequency low. Further analysis of our asymmetric matching alleles model yields three novel predictions. To begin, a facet of asymmetric matching whose study has been avoided involves the fitness implications of imperfect matching. Imperfect matching permits reduced fitness for parasites enacting a cross infection. Under imperfect matching, increasing the relative fitness for cross infections lowers the level of asymmetric matching required for a parasite genotype to have the highest fitness when infecting any host, which would drive this parasite genotype to or near fixation. Having this high fitness parasite genotype near fixation yields a selection pressure within the host population to mitigate parasite success by having a high frequency of the cross infection host genotype. The second model prediction demonstrates that asymmetric matching can lead to increased system stability by dampening oscillations and lowering the amount of mutation needed for stability. Finally, our analysis predicts that the magnitude of antagonism between parasites and hosts has a large effect on the genetic composition and system behavior of the host-parasite system. We find that parasite and host mutation contribute differently to these antagonism-mediated effects. Overall, studying the single locus system behavior of asymmetric matching allele models should allow for better informed future studies concerning the effects that asymmetric matching has on; polymorphism incidence, recombination rate and mutation rate 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".