The origin of the apple subfamily (Maloideae; Rosaceae) is clarified by DNA sequence data from duplicated GBSSI genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For 70 yr the leading hypothesis for the origin of the Maloideae has involved wide hybridization between ancestors of two other subfamilies. The basis of this hypothesis is that Maloideae have a base chromosome number of 17, whereas other Rosaceae are mostly x = 7, 8, or 9. To investigate this hypothesis we cloned and sequenced approximately 1.8 kilobases from the 5' portion of granule-bound starch synthase (GBSSI, or waxy) genes for 89 clones from 32 Rosaceae genera. Previous studies demonstrate the presence of two copies in all Rosaceae (GBSSI-1 and GBSSI-2) and four in Maloideae (GBSSI-1A, GBSSI-1B, GBSSI-2A, and GBSSI-2B). Parsimony and maximum likelihood analyses nest Gillenia, a genus of the southeastern United States with a base chromosome number of 9, within either Maloideae GBSSI-1 or GBSSI-2. Monophyly of Maloideae plus Gillenia is well supported by bootstrap values, loss of the sixth intron in all GBSSI-1 sequences, intron alignability between genera, and numerous nonmolecular characters. Our results falsify the wide-hybridization hypothesis and are consistent with a polyploid origin involving only members of a lineage that contained the ancestors of Gillenia. Under this hypothesis, the subfamily originated in North America, and the high Maloideae chromosome number arose via aneuploidy from x = 18.
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) | 0.001 | 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".