Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of the genetic inferences about dikaryons, diploids, and their interactions reviewed by John Raper in Genetics of Sexuality in Higher Fungi in 1966 remain essentially unchanged to the present. This review examines the immediate and long-term consequences of dikaryosis, with comparison to diploidy. In keeping with the theme of Raper's book Genetics of Sexuality in Higher Fungi, it focuses on fungi with prolonged dikaryotic phases, mainly the Hymenomycetes. The four interrelated conclusions of this review are that (i) the known dynamics of nuclear migration and dikaryon formation suggest that mating in nature is asymmetric for male and female function, (ii) the transmissions of nuclear and mitochondrial genomes follow different rules, (iii) dikaryons produce recombinant genotypes without fruiting, and (iv) dikaryons and diploids carry different expectations for evolution. In addition to the genetic differences between diploids and dikaryons their different phenotypic responses may confer advantages or disadvantages depending on conditions. With an enhanced range of phenotypes, dikaryons might be more adept than diploids in coping with heterogeneous environments. It may be possible to make fair comparisons of dikaryotic cell populations with and without opportunities for nuclear-mitochondrial genomic conflict, somatic recombination, and diploidy and to compare the evolutionary outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".