Concerted evolution of duplicated mitochondrial control regions in three related seabird species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many population genetic and phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) assume that mitochondrial genomes do not undergo recombination. Recently, concerted evolution of duplicated mitochondrial control regions has been documented in a range of taxa. Although the molecular mechanism that facilitates concerted evolution is unknown, all proposed mechanisms involve mtDNA recombination. RESULTS: Here, we document a duplication of a large region (cytochrome b, tRNAThr, tRNAPro, ND6, tRNAGlu and the control region) in the mitochondrial genome of three related seabird species. To investigate the evolution of duplicate control regions, we sequenced both control region copies (CR1 and CR2) from 21 brown (Sula leucogaster), 21 red-footed (S. sula) and 21 blue-footed boobies (S. nebouxii). Phylogenetic analysis suggested that the duplicated control regions are predominantly evolving in concert; however, approximately 51 base pairs at the 5' end of CR1 and CR2 exhibited a discordant phylogenetic signal and appeared to be evolving independently. CONCLUSIONS: Both the structure of the duplicated region and the conflicting phylogenetic signals are remarkably similar to a pattern found in Thalassarche albatrosses, which are united with boobies in a large clade that includes all procellariiform and most pelecaniform seabirds. Therefore we suggest that concerted evolution of duplicated control regions either is taxonomically widespread within seabirds, or that it has evolved many times.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".