The “Fish-Specific” Hox Cluster Duplication Is Coincident with the Origin of Teleosts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hox gene complement of zebrafish, medaka, and fugu differs from that of other gnathostome vertebrates. These fishes have seven to eight Hox clusters compared to the four Hox clusters described in sarcopterygians and shark. The clusters in different teleost lineages are orthologous, implying that a "fish-specific" Hox cluster duplication has occurred in the stem lineage leading to the most recent common ancestor of zebrafish and fugu. The timing of this event, however, is unknown. To address this question, we sequenced four Hox genes from taxa representing basal actinopterygian and teleost lineages and compared them to known sequences from shark, coelacanth, zebrafish, and other teleosts. The resulting gene genealogies suggest that the fish-specific Hox cluster duplication occurred coincident with the origin of crown group teleosts. In addition, we obtained evidence for an independent Hox cluster duplication in the sturgeon lineage (Acipenseriformes). Finally, results from HoxA11 suggest that duplicated Hox genes have experienced diversifying selection immediately after the duplication event. Taken together, these results support the notion that the duplicated Hox genes of teleosts were causally relevant to adaptive evolution during the initial teleost radiation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it