Origins and functional diversification of salinity‐responsive Na<sup>+</sup>, K<sup>+</sup><scp>ATP</scp>ase α1 paralogs in salmonids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Salmoniform whole-genome duplication is hypothesized to have facilitated the evolution of anadromy, but little is known about the contribution of paralogs from this event to the physiological performance traits required for anadromy, such as salinity tolerance. Here, we determined when two candidate, salinity-responsive paralogs of the Na(+) , K(+) ATPase α subunit (α1a and α1b) evolved and studied their evolutionary trajectories and tissue-specific expression patterns. We found that these paralogs arose during a small-scale duplication event prior to the Salmoniform, but after the teleost, whole-genome duplication. The 'freshwater paralog' (α1a) is primarily expressed in the gills of Salmoniformes and an unduplicated freshwater sister species (Esox lucius) and experienced positive selection in the freshwater ancestor of Salmoniformes and Esociformes. Contrary to our predictions, the 'saltwater paralog' (α1b), which is more widely expressed than α1a, did not experience positive selection during the evolution of anadromy in the Coregoninae and Salmonine. To determine whether parallel mutations in Na(+) , K(+) ATPase α1 may contribute to salinity tolerance in other fishes, we studied independently evolved salinity-responsive Na(+) , K(+) ATPase α1 paralogs in Anabas testudineus and Oreochromis mossambicus. We found that a quarter of the mutations occurring between salmonid α1a and α1b in functionally important sites also evolved in parallel in at least one of these species. Together, these data argue that paralogs contributing to salinity tolerance evolved prior to the Salmoniform whole-genome duplication and that strong selection and/or functional constraints have led to parallel evolution in salinity-responsive Na(+) , K(+) ATPase α1 paralogs in fishes.
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".