Talk:Host–parasite coevolution/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Host–parasite coevolution is a special case of coevolution, the reciprocal adaptive genetic change of a host and a parasite through reciprocal selective pressures. – maybe we can get rid of the first "reciprocal"? Seems repetitive to have this word twice.

It is characterized by reciprocal genetic change and thus changes in allele frequencies within populations. – Why is this specific for host-parasite coevolution, doesn't it apply to coevolution in general? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

overdominance caused by heterozygote advantage; – aren't both terms describing the same thing, some being more specific than the other? To reduce the count of technical terms in the lead, what do we loose when removing "overdominance caused by"?

and directional selective sweeps near an advantageous mutation – in the main text, there is only the sub-heading "directional selection". Why do you use the term "selective sweeps" in the lead, then, instead of simply "directional selection"?

Selective sweeps are one form of directional selection, where the increase in frequency will eventually lead to the fixation of the advantageous allele. – Isn't that definition different from what was said in the lead ("selective sweeps near an advantageous mutation")?

The lead summarizes the article, but is, I think, too technical and difficult to comprehend. The lead should be as accessible as possible. One problem is that it jumps right into the selection dynamics right after the first sentence. To improve the lead, I would, for example, suggest to add general info provided in the "Overview" section to the lead, after its first sentence. Maybe even repeat most of the "Overview" section in the lead. Also, plain-language explanations of central terms in parentheses could help.

interspecific interactions – link, or even better use "interactions between species" instead to be more accessible to readers.

In other words, the specific environmental conditions determine how any genotype of one species influences the fitness of another species.[10] – Would be helpful to have, in addition, also an example, as examples greatly help with comprehension.

The Plantago/Podosphaera example is given immediately after the list. I've reworded the start of that paragraph to make its purpose clear.

Yes, but that example is general and doesn't go into the three elements, so it is not really helpful in understanding each of the three elements. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These hotspots are intermixed with so-called coldspots in which only one or neither species adapts to the antagonist. – Again, an example could help. What environmental conditions could possibly cause a coldspot?

Same example. If a specific value of environmental variable favours the parasite - say the mildew likes it damp - then places with values other than that (dry) will be coldspots.

Ideally, this specific example ("the mildew likes it damp") could be added to the article, it would greatly help with understanding this mechanism. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Between the communities/regions there is a continuous "mixing" of traits by gene flow, random genetic drift, population extinction, or mutation. – How can extinction possibly lead to mixing of traits? I thought it can only lead to loss.

This is the extinction of populations not species. If population B is lost, populations A and C may meet for the first time and mix.

This result is consistent with the Red Queen hypothesis that sexual reproduction is favoured during host–parasite coevolution – And why is this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, investment in one trait (e.g. virulence or immunity) – Is "investment" the proper term? It sounds as if evolution would be an active process controlled by the organism, like a human who invests time to get something done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, teleology in biology. The language of purpose is hard to avoid; the meaning is natural selection. But we don't need the word "investment".

binding of the bacteriophage to E. coli surface receptor – "a" or "the" missing?

favouring generalists for both antagonists. – two antagonists, or should it be "antagonists and hosts"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. See a few more comments and replies above, but I would not insist on any. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the fixes, looking very good now. But one last point: The article title involves a Dash#En dash, but I think it needs to be a Hyphen-minus instead. The hyphen-minus is also what is used in the article text, except for the first sentence of the lead which has the en dash instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then it must be changed immediately the GAN process has completed. (The whole thing goes into a tangle if the title changes in mid-stream.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there are actually a few papers which indeed use the en-dash, so maybe I am wrong. Please decide what is best, it should only be consistent in the article then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]