ArticleEcology and evolution2014
Genotypic-specific variance in Caenorhabditis elegans lifetime fecundity.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- From manual counting to YOLO: Using computer vision to automate large-scale fecundity assays in C. elegans.PloS one · 2026Article
- Natural variation in reproductive timing and X-chromosome nondisjunction in Caenorhabditis elegans.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- PhenoMIP: High-Throughput Phenotyping of DiverseG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020Article
- The Evolution of Variance Control.Trends in ecology & evolution · 2020Review
- Article
- Evolution in eggs and phases: experimental evolution of fecundity and reproductive timing inRoyal Society open science · 2016Article
- Ten years of life in compost: temporal and spatial variation of North German Caenorhabditis elegans populations.Ecology and evolution · 2015Article
- Combinatorial chemistry in nematodes: modular assembly of primary metabolism-derived building blocks.Natural product reports · 2015Review
- The evolution of plasticity of dauer larva developmental arrest in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.Ecology and evolution · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Organisms live in heterogeneous environments, so strategies that maximze fitness in such environments will evolve. Variation in traits is important because it is the raw material on which natural selection acts during evolution. Phenotypic variation is usually thought to be due to genetic variation and/or environmentally induced effects. Therefore, genetically identical individuals in a constant environment should have invariant traits. Clearly, genetically identical individuals do differ phenotypically, usually thought to be due to stochastic processes. It is now becoming clear, especially from studies of unicellular species, that phenotypic variance among genetically identical individuals in a constant environment can be genetically controlled and that therefore, in principle, this can be subject to selection. However, there has been little investigation of these phenomena in multicellular species. Here, we have studied the mean lifetime fecundity (thus a trait likely to be relevant to reproductive success), and variance in lifetime fecundity, in recently-wild isolates of the model nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. We found that these genotypes differed in their variance in lifetime fecundity: some had high variance in fecundity, others very low variance. We find that this variance in lifetime fecundity was negatively related to the mean lifetime fecundity of the lines, and that the variance of the lines was positively correlated between environments. We suggest that the variance in lifetime fecundity may be a bet-hedging strategy used by this species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.