Dynamic karyotype evolution and unique sex determination systems in Leptidea wood white butterflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chromosomal rearrangements have the potential to limit the rate and pattern of gene flow within and between species and thus play a direct role in promoting and maintaining speciation. Wood white butterflies of the genus Leptidea are excellent models to study the role of chromosome rearrangements in speciation because they show karyotype variability not only among but also within species. In this work, we investigated genome architecture of three cryptic Leptidea species (L. juvernica, L. sinapis and L. reali) by standard and molecular cytogenetic techniques in order to reveal causes of the karyotype variability. RESULTS: Chromosome numbers ranged from 2n = 85 to 91 in L. juvernica and 2n = 69 to 73 in L. sinapis (both from Czech populations) to 2n = 51 to 55 in L. reali (Spanish population). We observed significant differences in chromosome numbers and localization of cytogenetic markers (rDNA and H3 histone genes) within the offspring of individual females. Using FISH with the (TTAGG) n telomeric probe we also documented the presence of multiple chromosome fusions and/or fissions and other complex rearrangements. Thus, the intraspecific karyotype variability is likely due to irregular chromosome segregation of multivalent meiotic configurations. The analysis of female meiotic chromosomes by GISH and CGH revealed multiple sex chromosomes: W1W2W3Z1Z2Z3Z4 in L. juvernica, W1W2W3Z1Z2Z3 in L. sinapis and W1W2W3W4Z1Z2Z3Z4 in L. reali. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a dynamic karyotype evolution and point to the role of chromosomal rearrangements in the speciation of Leptidea butterflies. Moreover, our study revealed a curious sex determination system with 3-4 W and 3-4 Z chromosomes, which is unique in the Lepidoptera and which could also have played a role in the speciation process of the three Leptidea 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".