bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Costa, I. R.

Publications and source records attributed to Costa, I. R..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Monandrous flies do remate: plastic and evolutionary consequences of heat exposure on mating behaviour and fertility in Drosophila subobscura

Recent work has reinforced the importance of fertility in predicting population persistence under global warming, especially male fertility. However, most studies on mating and reproductive performance have used as model organism polyandrous species, remaining unclear if and how will monandrous species respond. This is unfortunate as one could expect monandrous species to be particularly susceptible, given their inability to use sperm from multiple males to prevent reduced progeny production due to male sterility. It could be that monandrous females can overcome this toll in fertility by plastically changing their mating rate, or that monandrous populations evolve the ability to remate upon repeated exposure to heat. To test this, we studied the real-time evolution as well as the thermal plastic response of two geographically distinct populations of the monandrous species Drosophila subobscura after 45 generations evolving under a warming scenario. We assessed the impact of heat on male mating behaviour and fertility, as well as the impact of reduced male fertility on female mating behaviour and fertility. We found that in males the toll in mating behaviour due to heat can be recovered with time, whereas that in reproductive success cannot. On the other hand, females exposed to heat-stressed males significantly increased their remating rate, allowing to recover considerably their own reproductive success. Interestingly, most responses were plastic, with no striking effect of adaptation to warming nor of geographical origin. Our work brings new insights into the effects of heat on monandrous species and establishes a model to study how a shift in mating system may affect species ability to respond to climate change.

evolutionary biology↗

Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature

BackgroundPreprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the readers ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. MethodsIn this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals. ResultsPeer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. ConclusionsOur results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

scientific communication and education↗