Harvesting Evolutionary Signals in a Forest of Prokaryotic Gene Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenomic studies produce increasingly large phylogenetic forests of trees with patchy taxonomical sampling. Typically, prokaryotic data generate thousands of gene trees of all sizes that are difficult, if not impossible, to root. Their topologies do not match the genealogy of lineages, as they are influenced not only by duplication, losses, and vertical descent but also by lateral gene transfer (LGT) and recombination. Because this complexity in part reflects the diversity of evolutionary processes, the study of phylogenetic forests is thus a great opportunity to improve our understanding of prokaryotic evolution. Here, we show how the rich evolutionary content of such novel phylogenetic objects can be exploited through the development of new approaches designed specifically for extracting the multiple evolutionary signals present in the forest of life, that is, by slicing up trees into remarkable bits and pieces: clans, slices, and clips. We harvested a forest of 6,901 unrooted gene trees comprising up to 100 prokaryotic genomes (41 archaea and 59 bacteria) to search for evolutionary events that a species tree would not account for. We identified 1) trees and partitions of trees that reflected the lifestyle of organisms rather than their taxonomy, 2) candidate lifestyle-specific genetic modules, used by distinct unrelated organisms to adapt to the same environment, 3) gene families, nonrandomly distributed in the functional space, that were frequently exchanged between archaea and bacteria, sometimes without major changes in their sequences. Finally, 4) we reconstructed polarized networks of genetic partnerships between archaea and bacteria to describe some of the rules affecting LGT between these two Domains.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".