<i>Hox</i>clusters of the bichir (Actinopterygii,<i>Polypterus senegalus</i>) highlight unique patterns of sequence evolution in gnathostome phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teleost fishes have extra Hox gene clusters owing to shared or lineage-specific genome duplication events in rayfinned fish (actinopterygian) phylogeny. Hence, extrapolating between genome function of teleosts and human or even between different fish species is difficult. We have sequenced and analyzed Hox gene clusters of the Senegal bichir (Polypterus senegalus), an extant representative of the most basal actinopterygian lineage. Bichir possesses four Hox gene clusters (A, B, C, D); phylogenetic analysis supports their orthology to the four Hox gene clusters of the gnathostome ancestor. We have generated a comprehensive database of conserved Hox noncoding sequences that include cartilaginous, lobe-finned, and ray-finned fishes (bichir and teleosts). Our analysis identified putative and known Hox cis-regulatory sequences with differing depths of conservation in Gnathostoma. We found that although bichir possesses four Hox gene clusters, its pattern of conservation of noncoding sequences is mosaic between outgroups, such as human, coelacanth, and shark, with four Hox gene clusters and teleosts, such as zebrafish and pufferfish, with seven or eight Hox gene clusters. Notably, bichir Hox gene clusters have been invaded by DNA transposons and this trend is further exemplified in teleosts, suggesting an as yet unrecognized mechanism of genome evolution that may explain Hox cluster plasticity in actinopterygians. Taken together, our results suggest that actinopterygian Hox gene clusters experienced a reduction in selective constraints that surprisingly predates the teleost-specific genome 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 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".