Comparative evolutionary genomics of medaka and three-spined stickleback<i>fabp2a</i>and<i>fabp2b</i>genes with<i>fabp2</i>of zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we describe the evolutionary relationship of the duplicated intestinal fatty acid binding protein genes fabp2a and fabp2b from medaka and three-spined stickleback by comparing them to the well-studied fabp2 gene from zebrafish. The duplicated fabp2 genes from medaka and three-spined stickleback consist of four exons separated by three introns, which code for a polypeptide of 132 amino acids. Fabp2a and Fabp2b of medaka and three-spined stickleback share highest sequence identity with zebrafish Fabp2. All Fabp2/FABP2 sequences from vertebrates form a distinct clade in a neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree with a robust 100% bootstrap value, which indicates that the medaka and three-spined stickleback fabp2a and fabp2b are orthologs of zebrafish fabp2. The syntenic genes of fabp2a and fabp2b from medaka and three-spined stickleback were shown to be conserved with the syntenic genes of fabp2/FABP2 from zebrafish and human, evidence that the duplicated fabp2 genes from medaka and three-spined stickleback most likely arose from the teleost-specific whole-genome duplication. The tissue-specific distribution of medaka and three-spined stickleback fabp2a and fabp2b transcripts, and zebrafish fabp2 transcripts, assayed by RT-qPCR suggests the acquisition of new function(s) by the medaka fabp2a, and the distinct evolution of fabp2b compared with fabp2a in the medaka and three-spined stickleback genomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".