MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149999668 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msl160

The Complex Evolutionary History of Gorillas: Insights from Genomic Data

2006· article· en· W2149999668 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Olaf Thalmann, A. Fischer, Felix Lankester, Svante Pääbo, Linda Vigilant

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Eye InstituteMinistry of Environment - Saskatchewan
KeywordsBiologyEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsHominidaeBiological evolutionComputational biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relatively little is known about the evolutionary and demographic histories of gorillas, one of our closest living relatives. In this study, we used samples from both western (Gorilla gorilla) and eastern (Gorilla beringei) gorillas to infer the timing of the split between these geographically disjunct populations and to elaborate the demographic history of gorillas. Here we present DNA sequences from 16 noncoding autosomal loci from 15 western gorillas and 3 eastern gorillas, including 2 noninvasively sampled free-ranging individuals. We find that the genetic diversity of gorillas is similar to that of chimpanzees but almost twice as high as that of bonobos and humans. A significantly positive Fu & Li's D was observed for western gorillas, suggesting a complex demographic history with a constant, long-term population size and ancestral population structure. Among different population-split scenarios, our data suggest a complex history of western and eastern gorillas including an initial population split at around 0.9-1.6 MYA and subsequent, primarily male-mediated gene flow until approximately 80,000-200,000 years ago. Furthermore, simulations revealed that more gene flow took place from eastern to western gorilla populations than vice versa.

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 score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations139
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207