Genome size evolution and polyploidy in the Daphnia pulex complex (Cladocera: Daphniidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome size was estimated in 49 clones of the Daphnia pulex complex from temperate and subarctic locations using flow cytometry and microsatellite DNA analyses. Significant genome size differences were found in diploid species belonging to the two genetically distinct groups (the pulicaria and the tenebrosa groups), with clones from the tenebrosa group having genome sizes 22% larger than those in the pulicaria group. Combined flow cytometry and microsatellite DNA analyses revealed that nearly all polyploid clones in the D. pulex complex are triploid and not tetraploid, as was previously suggested. Sequencing analyses of the ND5 gene to position clones in their respective clades within the D. pulex complex have uncovered three triploid clones of Daphnia middendorffiana with a D. pulex maternal parent. This result was unexpected because Daphnia pulicaria has always been identified as the maternal parent of these hybrid polyploid clones. Triploid clones likely owe their origins to interactions between sexual and asexual populations. Further interactions in the tenebrosa group have generated tetraploid clones but these events have been rare. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 97, 68–79.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".