Rapid Evolution Through Gene Duplication and Subfunctionalization of the Testes-Specific α4 Proteasome Subunits in DrosophilaSequence data from this article have been deposited with the EMBL/GenBank Data Libraries under accession nos. AY542377, AY542378, AY542379, AY542380, AY542381, AY542382, AY542383, AY542384, AY542385, AY542386, AY542387, AY542388, AY542389, AY542390, AY542391, AY542392, AY542393, AY542394, AY542395, AY542396, AY542397, AY542398, AY542399, AY542400, AY542401, AY542402, AY542403, AY542404, AY542405, AY542406, AY542407, AY542408, AY542409, AY542410, AY542411, AY542412, AY542413, AY542414, AY542415, AY542416, AY542417, AY542418, AY542419, AY542420, AY542421, AY542422, AY542423, AY542424, AY542425, AY542426, AY542427, AY542428, AY542429, AY542430, AY542431, AY542432.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Evidence suggests that duplicated genes are retained at a much higher rate than originally thought and that functional divergence of gene copies is a major factor promoting their retention in the genome. We find that two Drosophila testes-specific alpha4 proteasome subunit genes (alpha4-t1 and alpha4-t2) have a higher polymorphism within species and are significantly more diverged between species than the somatic alpha4 gene. Our data suggest that following gene duplication, the alpha4-t1 gene experienced relaxed selective constraints, whereas the alpha4-t2 gene experienced positive selection acting on several codons. We report significant heterogeneity in evolutionary rates among all three paralogs at homologous codons, indicating that functional divergence has coincided with genic divergence. Reproductive subfunctionalization may allow for a more rapid evolution of reproductive traits and a greater specialization of testes function. Our data add to the increasing evidence that duplicated genes experience lower selective constraints and in some cases positive selection following duplication. Newly duplicated genes that are freer from selective constraints may provide a mechanism for developing new interactions and a pathway for the evolution of new genes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".