MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091354623 · doi:10.1111/mec.13076

Pan‐African phylogeography of a model organism, the African clawed frog ‘<i>Xenopus laevis’</i>

2015· article· en· W2091354623 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin L. S. Furman, Adam J. Bewick, Tia L. Harrison, Eli Greenbaum, Václav Gvoždík, Chifundera Kusamba, Ben J. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersRijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland
KeywordsBiologyPhylogeographyEvolutionary biologyMitochondrial DNAPopulationZoologyCoalescent theoryCladePhylogenetic treeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The African clawed frog Xenopus laevis has a large native distribution over much of sub-Saharan Africa and is a model organism for research, a proposed disease vector, and an invasive species. Despite its prominent role in research and abundance in nature, surprisingly little is known about the phylogeography and evolutionary history of this group. Here, we report an analysis of molecular variation of this clade based on 17 loci (one mitochondrial, 16 nuclear) in up to 159 individuals sampled throughout its native distribution. Phylogenetic relationships among mitochondrial DNA haplotypes were incongruent with those among alleles of the putatively female-specific sex-determining gene DM-W, in contrast to the expectation of strict matrilineal inheritance of both loci. Population structure and evolutionarily diverged lineages were evidenced by analyses of molecular variation in these data. These results further contextualize the chronology, and evolutionary relationships within this group, support the recognition of X. laevis sensu stricto, X. petersii, X. victorianus and herein revalidated X. poweri as separate species. We also propose that portions of the currently recognized distributions of X. laevis (north of the Congo Basin) and X. petersii (south of the Congo Basin) be reassigned to X. poweri.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207