Convergent gene loss following gene and genome duplications creates single-copy families in flowering plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of gene gain through duplication has long been appreciated. In contrast, the importance of gene loss has only recently attracted attention. Indeed, studies in organisms ranging from plants to worms and humans suggest that duplication of some genes might be better tolerated than that of others. Here we have undertaken a large-scale study to investigate the existence of duplication-resistant genes in the sequenced genomes of 20 flowering plants. We demonstrate that there is a large set of genes that is convergently restored to single-copy status following multiple genome-wide and smaller scale duplication events. We rule out the possibility that such a pattern could be explained by random gene loss only and therefore propose that there is selection pressure to preserve such genes as singletons. This is further substantiated by the observation that angiosperm single-copy genes do not comprise a random fraction of the genome, but instead are often involved in essential housekeeping functions that are highly conserved across all eukaryotes. Furthermore, single-copy genes are generally expressed more highly and in more tissues than non-single-copy genes, and they exhibit higher sequence conservation. Finally, we propose different hypotheses to explain their resistance against duplication.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".