Data from: Mixed evidence for intralocus sexual conflict from male-limited selection in <em>Drosophila melanogaster</em>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual conflict over shared traits – intralocus sexual conflict (IaSC) – may be common and consequential, but experimental tests of its relative magnitude are challenging and limited in number. We use a sex-limited selection experiment, designed to subject haplotypes of Drosophila melanogaster to selection for male fitness without opposing selection acting on female fitness. Importantly, we use three novel base populations to compare results with those from the LHM population, the sole population investigated using this technique. In contrast with previous studies, we find that the male fitness of haplotypes subject to male-limited selection (ML populations) is not consistently better than their matched (MC) controls when tested in the “wildtype” state. Males from ML lines did not outperform controls in competitive fitness assays, mate choice trials, fecundity induction, or sperm offense tests. As predicted, genetic variation for male fitness was reduced, with low fitness haplotypes apparently removed by selection, but this was only surveyed in one replicate population pair and included a potential artifact in the protocol. Female fitness was markedly reduced by carriage of ML haplotypes, as predicted by sexual antagonism. Hence, our results are only partially consistent with the IaSC hypothesis, raising questions about the relative contribution of sexual conflict to the standing genetic variation in these populations and the potential role of artifacts in the protocol that may have obscured our ability to detect IaSC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.014 |
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".