Conservation and divergence of gene expression plasticity following <i>c</i>. 140 million years of evolution in lodgepole pine (<i><scp>P</scp>inus contorta</i>) and interior spruce (<i><scp>P</scp>icea glauca</i> × <i><scp>P</scp>icea engelmannii</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species respond to environmental stress through a combination of genetic adaptation and phenotypic plasticity, both of which may be important for survival in the face of climatic change. By characterizing the molecular basis of plastic responses and comparing patterns among species, it is possible to identify how such traits evolve. Here, we used de novo transcriptome assembly and RNAseq to explore how patterns of gene expression differ in response to temperature, moisture, and light regime treatments in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and interior spruce (a natural hybrid population of Picea glauca and Picea engelmannii). We found wide evidence for an effect of treatment on expression within each species, with 6413 and 11,658 differentially expressed genes identified in spruce and pine, respectively. Comparing patterns of expression among these species, we found that 74% of all orthologs with differential expression had a pattern that was conserved in both species, despite 140 million yr of evolution. We also found that the specific treatments driving expression patterns differed between genes with conserved versus diverged patterns of expression. We conclude that natural selection has probably played a role in shaping plastic responses to environment in these species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".