Phenotypic and Genotypic Expression of Self-incompatibility Haplotypes in Arabidopsis lyrata Suggests Unique Origin of Alleles in Different Dominance Classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The highly divergent alleles of the SRK gene in outcrossing Arabidopsis lyrata have provided important insights into the evolutionary history of self-incompatibility (SI) alleles and serve as an ideal model for studies of the evolutionary and molecular interactions between alleles in cell-cell recognition systems in general. One tantalizing question is how new specificities arise in systems that require coordination between male and female components. Allelic recruitment via gene conversion has been proposed as one possibility, based on the division of DNA sequences at the SRK locus into two distinctive groups: (1) sequences whose relationships are not well resolved and display the long branch lengths expected for a gene under balancing selection (Class A); and (2) sequences falling into a well-supported group with shorter branch lengths (Class B) that are closely related to an unlinked paralogous locus. The purpose of this study was to determine if differences in phenotype (site of expression assayed using allele-specific reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) or function (dominance relationships assayed through controlled pollinations) accompany the sequence-based classification. Expression of Class A alleles was restricted to floral tissues, as predicted for genes involved in the SI response. In contrast, Class B alleles, despite being tightly linked to the SI phenotype, were unexpectedly expressed in both leaves and floral tissues; the same pattern found for a related unlinked paralogous sequence. Whereas Class A included haplotypes in three different dominance classes, all Class B haplotypes were found to be recessive to all except one Class A haplotype. In addition, mapping of expression and dominance patterns onto an S-domain-based genealogy suggested that allelic dominance may be determined more by evolutionary history than by frequency-dependent selection for lowered dominance as some theories suggest. The possibility that interlocus gene conversion might have contributed to allelic diversity is discussed.
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".