Phylogenetic distribution of TTAGG telomeric repeats in insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the presence of TTAGG telomeric repeats in 22 species from 20 insect orders with no or inconclusive information on the telomere composition by single-primer polymerase chain reaction with (TTAGG)6 primers, Southern hybridization of genomic DNAs, and fluorescence in situ hybridization of chromosomes with (TTAGG)n probes. The (TTAGG)n sequence was present in 15 species and absent in 7 species. In a compilation of new and published data, we combined the distribution of (TTAGG)n telomere motif with the insect phylogenetic tree. The pattern of phylogenetic distribution of the TTAGG repeats clearly supported a hypothesis that the sequence was an ancestral motif of insect telomeres but was lost repeatedly during insect evolution. The motif was conserved in the "primitive" apterous insect orders, the Archaeognatha and Zygentoma, in the "lower" Neoptera (Plecoptera, Phasmida, Orthoptera, Blattaria, Mantodea, and Isoptera) with the exception of Dermaptera, and in Paraneoptera (Psocoptera, Thysanoptera, Auchenorrhyncha, and Sternorrhyncha) with the exception of Heteroptera. Surprisingly, the (TTAGG)n motif was not found in the "primitive" pterygotes, the Palaeoptera (Ephemeroptera and Odonata). The Endopterygota were heterogeneous for the occurrence of TTAGG repeats. The motif was conserved in Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, and Trichoptera but was lost in one clade formed by Diptera, Siphonaptera, and Mecoptera. It was also lost in Raphidioptera, whereas it was present in Megaloptera. In contrast with previous authors, we did not find the motif in Neuroptera. Finally, both TTAGG-positive and TTAGG-negative species were reported in Coleoptera. The repeated losses of TTAGG in different branches of the insect phylogenetic tree and, in particular, in the most successful lineage of insect evolution, the Endopterygota, suggest a backup mechanism in the genome of insects that enabled them frequent evolutionary changes in telomere composition.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".