Polyploidy and angiosperm diversification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyploidy has long been recognized as a major force in angiosperm evolution. Recent genomic investigations not only indicate that polyploidy is ubiquitous among angiosperms, but also suggest several ancient genome-doubling events. These include ancient whole genome duplication (WGD) events in basal angiosperm lineages, as well as a proposed paleohexaploid event that may have occurred close to the eudicot divergence. However, there is currently no evidence for WGD in Amborella, the putative sister species to other extant angiosperms. The question is no longer "What proportion of angiosperms are polyploid?", but "How many episodes of polyploidy characterize any given lineage?" New algorithms provide promise that ancestral genomes can be reconstructed for deep divergences (e.g., it may be possible to reconstruct the ancestral eudicot or even the ancestral angiosperm genome). Comparisons of diversification rates suggest that genome doubling may have led to a dramatic increase in species richness in several angiosperm lineages, including Poaceae, Solanaceae, Fabaceae, and Brassicaceae. However, additional genomic studies are needed to pinpoint the exact phylogenetic placement of the ancient polyploidy events within these lineages and to determine when novel genes resulting from polyploidy have enabled adaptive radiations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".