Bibliographic record
Abstract
The barcode of life project has assembled a tremendous number of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) sequences. Although these sequences were gathered to develop a DNA-based system for species identification, it has been suggested that further biological inferences may also be derived from this wealth of data. Recurrent selective sweeps have been invoked as an evolutionary mechanism to explain limited intraspecific COI diversity, particularly in birds, but this hypothesis has not been formally tested. In this study, I collated COI sequences from previous barcoding studies on birds and tested them for evidence of selection. Using this expanded data set, I re-examined the relationships between intraspecific diversity and interspecific divergence and sampling effort, respectively. I employed the McDonald-Kreitman test to test for neutrality in sequence evolution between closely related pairs of species. Because amino acid sequences were generally constrained between closely related pairs, I also included broader intra-order comparisons to quantify patterns of protein variation in avian COI sequences. Lastly, using 22 published whole mitochondrial genomes, I compared the evolutionary rate of COI against the other 12 protein-coding mitochondrial genes to assess intragenomic variability. I found no conclusive evidence of selective sweeps. Most evidence pointed to an overall trend of strong purifying selection and functional constraint. The COI protein did vary across the class Aves, but to a very limited extent. COI was the least variable gene in the mitochondrial genome, suggesting that other genes might be more informative for probing factors constraining mitochondrial variation within species.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".