Differences in Selection Drive Olfactory Receptor Genes in Different Directions in Dogs and Wolf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The olfactory receptor (OR) gene family is the largest gene family found in mammalian genomes. It is known to evolve through a birth-and-death process. Here, we characterized the sequences of 16 segregating OR pseudogenes in the samples of the wolf and the Chinese village dog (CVD) and compared them with the sequences from dogs of different breeds. Our results show that the segregating OR pseudogenes in breed dogs are under strong purifying selection, while evolving neutrally in the CVD, and show a more complicated pattern in the wolf. In the wolf, we found a trend to remove deleterious polymorphisms and accumulate nondeleterious polymorphisms. On the basis of protein structure of the ORs, we found that the distribution of different types of polymorphisms (synonymous, nonsynonymous, tolerated, and untolerated) varied greatly between the wolf and the breed dogs. In summary, our results suggest that different forms of selection have acted on the segregating OR pseudogenes in the CVD since domestication, breed dogs after breed formation, and ancestral wolf population, which has driven the evolution of these genes in different directions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".