Shared Subgenome Dominance Following Polyploidization Explains Grass Genome Evolutionary Plasticity from a Seven Protochromosome Ancestor with 16K Protogenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern plant genomes are diploidized paleopolyploids. We revisited grass genome paleohistory in response to the diploidization process through a detailed investigation of the evolutionary fate of duplicated blocks. Ancestrally duplicated genes can be conserved, deleted, and shuffled, defining dominant (bias toward duplicate retention) and sensitive (bias toward duplicate erosion) chromosomal fragments. We propose a new grass genome paleohistory deriving from an ancestral karyotype structured in seven protochromosomes containing 16,464 protogenes and following evolutionary rules where 1) ancestral shared polyploidizations shaped conserved dominant (D) and sensitive (S) subgenomes, 2) subgenome dominance is revealed by both gene deletion and shuffling from the S blocks, 3) duplicate deletion/movement may have been mediated by single-/double-stranded illegitimate recombination mechanisms, 4) modern genomes arose through centromeric fusion of protochromosomes, leading to functional monocentric neochromosomes, 5) the fusion of two dominant blocks leads to supradominant neochromosomes (D + D = D) with higher ancestral gene retention compared with D + S = D (i.e., fusion of blocks with opposite sensitivity) or even S + S = S (i.e., fusion of two sensitive ancestral blocks). A new user-friendly online tool named "PlantSyntenyViewer," available at http://urgi.versailles.inra.fr/synteny-cereal, presents the refined comparative genomics data.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".