Divergence Times in Caenorhabditis and Drosophila Inferred from Direct Estimates of the Neutral Mutation Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate inference of the dates of common ancestry among species forms a central problem in understanding the evolutionary history of organisms. Molecular estimates of divergence time rely on the molecular evolutionary prediction that neutral mutations and substitutions occur at the same constant rate in genomes of related species. This underlies the notion of a molecular clock. Most implementations of this idea depend on paleontological calibration to infer dates of common ancestry, but taxa with poor fossil records must rely on external, potentially inappropriate, calibration with distantly related species. The classic biological models Caenorhabditis and Drosophila are examples of such problem taxa. Here, I illustrate internal calibration in these groups with direct estimates of the mutation rate from contemporary populations that are corrected for interfering effects of selection on the assumption of neutrality of substitutions. Divergence times are inferred among 6 species each of Caenorhabditis and Drosophila, based on thousands of orthologous groups of genes. I propose that the 2 closest known species of Caenorhabditis shared a common ancestor <24 MYA (Caenorhabditis briggsae and Caenorhabditis sp. 5) and that Caenorhabditis elegans diverged from its closest known relatives <30 MYA, assuming that these species pass through at least 6 generations per year; these estimates are much more recent than reported previously with molecular clock calibrations from non-nematode phyla. Dates inferred for the common ancestor of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans are roughly concordant with previous studies. These revised dates have important implications for rates of genome evolution and the origin of self-fertilization in Caenorhabditis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".