Population size and genome size in fishes: a closer look
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The several thousand-fold range in genome size among animals has remained a subject of active research and debate for more than half a century, but no satisfactory explanation has yet been provided. Many one-dimensional models have been postulated, but so far none has been successful in accounting for observed patterns in genome size diversity. The recent model based on differences in effective population size appeared to gain empirical support with a study of genome size and inferred effective population size in fishes, but there were several questionable aspects of the analysis. First, it was based on an assumption that microsatellite heterozygosity indicates long-term effective population size, whereas in actuality these markers evolve quickly and are sensitive to demographic events. Second, it included both ancient polyploids and non-polyploids, the former of which did not gain their current genome sizes through the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations as required in the model. Third, the analysis neglected the tremendous influence that Pleistocene glaciation bottlenecks had on heterozygosities in freshwater (and far less so, marine) fishes. In sum, it is apparent that genomes reached their current sizes in most fishes long before contemporary microsatellite heterozygosities were shaped, and that ancient polyploidy rather than the accumulation of mildly deleterious transposon insertions in small populations is the dominant factor that has influenced the large end of the range of genome sizes among fishes.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".