Divergent Positive Selection in Rhodopsin from Lake and Riverine Cichlid Fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of cichlid evolution have highlighted the importance of visual pigment genes in the spectacular radiation of the African rift lake cichlids. Recent work, however, has also provided strong evidence for adaptive diversification of riverine cichlids in the Neotropics, which inhabit environments of markedly different spectral properties from the African rift lakes. These ecological and/or biogeographic differences may have imposed divergent selective pressures on the evolution of the cichlid visual system. To test these hypotheses, we investigated the molecular evolution of the dim-light visual pigment, rhodopsin. We sequenced rhodopsin from Neotropical and African riverine cichlids and combined these data with published sequences from African cichlids. We found significant evidence for positive selection using random sites codon models in all cichlid groups, with the highest levels in African lake cichlids. Tests using branch-site and clade models that partitioned the data along ecological (lake, river) and/or biogeographic (African, Neotropical) boundaries found significant evidence of divergent selective pressures among cichlid groups. However, statistical comparisons among these models suggest that ecological, rather than biogeographic, factors may be responsible for divergent selective pressures that have shaped the evolution of the visual system in cichlids. We found that branch-site models did not perform as well as clade models for our data set, in which there was evidence for positive selection in the background. One of our most intriguing results is that the amino acid sites found to be under positive selection in Neotropical and African lake cichlids were largely nonoverlapping, despite falling into the same three functional categories: spectral tuning, retinal uptake/release, and rhodopsin dimerization. Taken together, these results would imply divergent selection across cichlid clades, but targeting similar functions. This study highlights the importance of molecular investigations of ecologically important groups and the flexibility of clade models in explicitly testing ecological hypotheses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".