Does Speciation between Arabidopsis halleri and Arabidopsis lyrata Coincide with Major Changes in a Molecular Target of Adaptation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since Darwin proposed natural selection as the driving force for the origin of species, the role of adaptive processes in speciation has remained controversial. In particular, a largely unsolved issue is whether key divergent ecological adaptations are associated with speciation events or evolve secondarily within sister species after the split. The plant Arabidopsis halleri is one of the few species able to colonize soils highly enriched in zinc and cadmium. Recent advances in the molecular genetics of adaptation show that the physiology of this derived ecological trait involves copy number expansions of the AhHMA4 gene, for which orthologs are found in single copy in the closely related A. lyrata and the outgroup A. thaliana. To gain insight into the speciation process, we ask whether adaptive molecular changes at this candidate gene were contemporary with important stages of the speciation process. We first inferred the scenario and timescale of speciation by comparing patterns of variation across the genomic backgrounds of A. halleri and A. lyrata. Then, we estimated the timing of the first duplication of AhHMA4 in A. halleri. Our analysis suggests that the historical split between the two species closely coincides with major changes in this molecular target of adaptation in the A. halleri lineage. These results clearly indicate that these changes evolved in A. halleri well before industrial activities fostered the spread of Zn- and Cd-polluted areas, and suggest that adaptive processes related to heavy-metal homeostasis played a major role in the speciation process.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".