Correlated Evolution among Six Gene Families in Drosophila Revealed by Parallel Change of Gene Numbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteins involved in a pathway are likely to evolve in a correlated fashion, and coevolving gene families tend to undergo complementary gains and losses. Accordingly, gene copy numbers (i.e., repertoire size) tend to show parallel changes during the evolution of coevolving gene families. To test and verify this hypothesis, here we describe positive correlations among the repertoire sizes of six gene families, that is, trypsin-like serine protease, odorant-binding protein, odorant receptor, gustatory receptor, cytochrome P450, and glutathione S-transferase after excluding the possibility of phylogenetic constraint and random drift. The observed correlations are indicative of parallel changes in the repertoire sizes of the six gene families that are due to similar demands for the quantity of these different genes in different lineages of Drosophila. In conclusion, we propose that the correlated evolution among these six gene families in Drosophila is a signature of a parallel response to ecological adaptation.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".