MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1985013121 · doi:10.1242/jeb.000430

MITOCHONDRIA AND MAKING NEW SPECIES

2007· article· en· W1985013121 on OpenAlexaff
Graham R. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMitochondrial DNABiologyMitochondrionReproductive isolationGenomeOffspringNuclear DNAPopulationNuclear geneEvolutionary biologyDNAGeneticsGeneSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How do new species arise? Many biologists are intrigued by this question:we are obviously not the same species as chimpanzees, so identifying different species can be simple. However, the process of speciation occurs gradually and is much harder to measure. Scientists want to know what changes occur between reproductive compatability, when two populations fully interbreed; and reproductive isolation, when two populations can't interbreed and become independent species. An early step in this process is called hybrid breakdown,where offspring with parents from different populations have reduced fitness,which gets in the way of successful interbreeding. The causes of hybrid breakdown are poorly understood, prompting Christopher Ellison and Ronald Burton from University of California San Diego to explore how mitochondrial function contributes to this process.As the powerhouse of the cell, mitochondria generate energy during respiration in the form of ATP. The final part of respiration involves an electron transport chain that contains five `complexes', each made up of many enzymes. All of the enzyme complexes, except complex II, contain proteins encoded by both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, and these proteins must interact properly for mitochondria to work effectively. Offspring can inherit nuclear DNA from either parent, but mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother, and these genomes normally co-evolve to keep proteins in the mitochondria interacting properly. Ellison and Burton suspected that hybrid breakdown is caused when mismatched proteins from genomes that haven't evolved together are combined. This could occur when mitochondrial DNA from a mother in one population is combined with nuclear DNA from a father in a different population.To test this idea, they collected marine crustaceans (Tigriopus californicus) from several different populations along the western coast of North America. There are strong genetic differences between wild populations, and hybrid breakdown occurs when different populations interbreed and produce offspring. To assess the effects of hybrid breakdown on mitochondrial function, the team interbred individuals from different populations and produced hybrids, then isolated their mitochondria to measure how well they made ATP.They found that mitochondria from hybrids produced much less ATP than their parents' mitochondria. The authors suspect this reduces hybrid fitness because efficient ATP production is essential for survival; however, they didn't know how ATP production was being reduced. To address this, they measured the activity of enzyme complexes I-IV from the mitochondrial electron transport chain. Complexes I, III and IV had reduced activity in hybrids. The team already knew that these complexes contain proteins encoded by mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, so concluded that incompatibilities between both protein types was causing the mitochondria in hybrids to produce less ATP.This idea was supported when they found that the activity of enzyme complex II, which is encoded by nuclear DNA only, was the same in hybrids and their parents. This shows that proteins encoded by nuclear DNA are unaffected by interbreeding, while incompatibilities between proteins encoded by nuclear and mitochondrial DNA from different populations might lead to reduced fitness and contribute to hybrid breakdown. By understanding how mitochondria can contribute to this early step in the process of speciation, Ellison and Burton have brought us one step closer to understanding the origin of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.021
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicMitochondrial Function and Pathology→French-language works237,207→