MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An unexpected recent ancestor of unisexual <i>Ambystoma</i>

2006· article· en· W2159147943 on OpenAlexafffund
A. V. Robertson, C. Ramsden, John Niedzwiecki, Jinzhong Fu, James P. Bogart

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyLineage (genetic)Mitochondrial DNAPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyAncestorMost recent common ancestorPhylogeneticsNuclear DNANuclear geneZoologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has shown that members of the unisexual hybrid complex of the genus Ambystoma possess a mitochondrial genome that is unrelated to their nuclear parental species, but the origin of this mitochondrion has remained unclear. We used a 744-bp fragment of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome b within a comparative phylogenetic framework to infer the maternal ancestor of this unisexual lineage. By examining a broader range of species than has previously been compared, we were able to uncover a recent maternal ancestor to this complex. Unexpectedly, Ambystoma barbouri, a species whose nuclear DNA has not been identified in the unisexuals, was found to be the recent maternal ancestor of the individuals examined through the discovery of a shared mtDNA haplotype between the unisexuals and A. barbouri. Based on a combination of sequence data and glacial patterning, we estimate that the unisexual lineage probably originated less than 25 000 years ago. In addition, all unisexuals examined showed extremely similar mtDNA sequences and the resultant phylogeny was consistent with a single origin for this lineage. These results confirm previous suggestions that the unisexual Ambystoma complex was formed from a hybridization event in which the nuclear DNA of the original maternal species was subsequently lost.

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 score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations44
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207