Antifreeze protein gene amplification facilitated niche exploitation and speciation in wolffish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During winter, the coastal waters of Newfoundland can be considered a 'freeze risk ecozone' for teleost fishes, where the shallower habitats pose a high (and the deeper habitats a low) risk of freezing. Atlantic (Anarhichas lupus) and spotted (Anarhichas minor) wolffish, which inhabit these waters, reside at opposite ends of this ecozone, with the Atlantic wolffish being the species facing the greatest risk, because of its shallower niche. In order to resist freezing, this species secretes five times the level of antifreeze protein (AFP) activity into the plasma than does the spotted wolffish. The main basis for this interspecific difference in AFP levels is gene dosage, as the Atlantic wolffish has approximately three times as many AFP gene copies as the spotted wolffish. In addition, AFP transcript levels in liver (the primary source of circulating AFPs) are several times higher in the Atlantic wolffish. One explanation for the difference in gene dosage and transcript levels is the presence of tandemly arrayed repeats in the latter, which make up two-thirds of its AFP gene pool. Such repeats are not present in the spotted wolffish. The available evidence indicates that the two species diverged from a common ancestor at a time when the ebb and flow of northern glaciations would have resulted in the emergence of shallow water 'freeze risk ecozones'. The results of this study suggest that the duplication/amplification of AFP genes in a subpopulation of ancestral wolffish would have facilitated the exploitation of this high-risk habitat, resulting in the divergence and evolution of modern-day Atlantic and spotted wolffish 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 | 0.000 | 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".