MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122725118 · doi:10.1534/genetics.106.069690

Ancestry Influences the Fate of Duplicated Genes Millions of Years After Polyploidization of Clawed Frogs (Xenopus)

2007· article· en· W2122725118 on OpenAlexaff
Ben J. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPolyploidGene duplicationLineage (genetic)Most recent common ancestorXenopusEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGenomePloidyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allopolyploid species form through the fusion of two differentiated genomes and, in the earliest stages of their evolution, essentially all genes in the nucleus are duplicated. Because unique mutations occur in each ancestor prior to allopolyploidization, duplicate genes in these species potentially are not interchangeable, and this could influence their genetic fates. This study explores evolution and expression of a simple duplicated complex--a heterodimer between RAG1 and RAG2 proteins in clawed frogs (Xenopus). Results demonstrate that copies of RAG1 degenerated in different polyploid species in a phylogenetically biased fashion, predominately in only one lineage of closely related paralogs. Surprisingly, as a result of an early deletion of one RAG2 paralog, it appears that in many species RAG1/RAG2 heterodimers are composed of proteins that were encoded by unlinked paralogs. If the tetraploid ancestor of extant species of Xenopus arose through allopolyploidization and if recombination between paralogs was rare, then the genes that encode functional RAG1 and RAG2 proteins in many polyploid species were each ultimately inherited from different diploid progenitors. These observations are consistent with the notion that ancestry can influence the fate of duplicate genes millions of years after duplication, and they uncover a dimension of natural selection in allopolyploid genomes that is distinct from other genetic phenomena associated with polyploidization or segmental duplication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207