MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135763494 · doi:10.7717/peerj.1028

Genetic architecture of pollination syndrome transition between hummingbird-specialist and generalist species in the genus <i>Rhytidophyllum</i> (Gesneriaceae)

2015· article· en· W2135763494 on OpenAlexaff
Hermine Alexandre, Justine Vrignaud, Brigitte Mangin, Simon Joly

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vieUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHummingbirdBiologyGeneralist and specialist speciesPollinationPollinatorNectarConvergent evolutionEvolutionary biologyGenetic architectureQuantitative trait locusBotanyPhylogeneticsEcologyGeneticsGenePollenHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptation to pollinators is a key factor of diversification in angiosperms. The Caribbean sister genera Rhytidophyllum and Gesneria present an important diversification of floral characters. Most of their species can be divided in two major pollination syndromes. Large-open flowers with pale colours and great amount of nectar represent the generalist syndrome, while the hummingbird-specialist syndrome corresponds to red tubular flowers with a less important nectar volume. Repeated convergent evolution toward the generalist syndrome in this group suggests that such transitions rely on few genes of moderate to large effect. To test this hypothesis, we built a linkage map and performed a QTL detection for divergent pollination syndrome traits by crossing one specimen of the generalist species Rhytidophyllum auriculatum with one specimen of the hummingbird pollinated R. rupincola. Using geometric morphometrics and univariate traits measurements, we found that floral shape among the second-generation hybrids is correlated with morphological variation observed between generalist and hummingbird-specialist species at the genus level. The QTL analysis showed that colour and nectar volume variation between syndromes involve each one major QTL while floral shape has a more complex genetic basis and rely on few genes of moderate effect. Finally, we did not detect any genetic linkage between the QTLs underlying those traits. This genetic independence of traits could have facilitated evolution toward optimal syndromes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207