Pollen-Specific, but Not Sperm-Specific, Genes Show Stronger Purifying Selection and Higher Rates of Positive Selection Than Sporophytic Genes in Capsella grandiflora
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection on the gametophyte can be a major force shaping plant genomes as 7-11% of genes are expressed only in that phase and 60% of genes are expressed in both the gametophytic and sporophytic phases. The efficacy of selection on gametophytic tissues is likely to be influenced by sexual selection acting on male and female functions of hermaphroditic plants. Moreover, the haploid nature of the gametophytic phase allows selection to be efficient in removing recessive deleterious mutations and fixing recessive beneficial mutations. To assess the importance of gametophytic selection, we compared the strength of purifying selection and extent of positive selection on gametophyte- and sporophyte-specific genes in the highly outcrossing plant Capsella grandiflora. We found that pollen-exclusive genes had a larger fraction of sites under strong purifying selection, a greater proportion of adaptive substitutions, and faster protein evolution compared with seedling-exclusive genes. In contrast, sperm cell-exclusive genes had a smaller fraction of sites under strong purifying selection, a lower proportion of adaptive substitutions, and slower protein evolution compared with seedling-exclusive genes. Observations of strong selection acting on pollen-expressed genes are likely explained by sexual selection resulting from pollen competition aided by the haploid nature of that tissue. The relaxation of selection in sperm might be due to the reduced influence of intrasexual competition, but reduced gene expression may also be playing an important role.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".