↓ Skip to main content

JOINT ALLELIC EFFECTS ON FITNESS AND METRIC TRAITS

Overview of attention for article published in Evolution, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
JOINT ALLELIC EFFECTS ON FITNESS AND METRIC TRAITS
Published in
Evolution, November 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01833.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrina McGuigan, Mark W. Blows

Abstract

Theoretical explanations of empirically observed standing genetic variation, mutation, and selection suggest that many alleles must jointly affect fitness and metric traits. However, there are few direct demonstrations of the nature and extent of these pleiotropic associations. We implemented a mutation accumulation (MA) divergence experimental design in Drosophila serrata to segregate genetic variants for fitness and metric traits. By exploiting naturally occurring MA line extinctions as a measure of line-level total fitness, manipulating sexual selection, and measuring productivity we were able to demonstrate genetic covariance between fitness and standard metric traits, wing size, and shape. Larger size was associated with lower total fitness and male sexual fitness, but higher productivity. Multivariate wing shape traits, capturing major axes of wing shape variation among MA lines, evolved only in the absence of sexual selection, and to the greatest extent in lines that went extinct, indicating that mutations contributing wing shape variation also typically had deleterious effects on both total fitness and male sexual fitness. This pleiotropic covariance of metric traits with fitness will drive their evolution, and generate the appearance of selection on the metric traits even in the absence of a direct contribution to fitness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 28 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 39%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Master 5 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Professor 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 81%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 May 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Evolution
#4,963
of 5,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,583
of 285,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evolution
#34
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.