English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Sometimes mutations in two genes produce a phenotype that is surprising in light of each mutation's individual effects. This phenomenon, which defines genetic interaction, can reveal functional relationships between genes and pathways. For example, double mutants with surprisingly slow growth define synergistic interactions that can identify compensatory pathways or protein complexes. Recent studies have used four mathematically distinct definitions of genetic interaction (here termed Product, Additive, Log, and Min). Whether this choice holds practical consequences has not been clear, because the definitions yield identical results under some conditions. Here, we show that the choice among alternative definitions can have profound consequences. Although 52% of known synergistic genetic interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae were inferred according to the Min definition, we find that both Product and Log definitions (shown here to be practically equivalent) are better than Min for identifying functional relationships. Additionally, we show that the Additive and Log definitions, each commonly used in population genetics, lead to differing conclusions related to the selective advantages of sexual reproduction.

Defining genetic interaction