Sequencing and analysis of 10,967 full-length cDNA clones from<i>Xenopus laevis</i>and<i>Xenopus tropicalis</i>reveals post-tetraploidization transcriptome remodeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequencing of full-insert clones from full-length cDNA libraries from both Xenopus laevis and Xenopus tropicalis has been ongoing as part of the Xenopus Gene Collection Initiative. Here we present 10,967 full ORF verified cDNA clones (8049 from X. laevis and 2918 from X. tropicalis) as a community resource. Because the genome of X. laevis, but not X. tropicalis, has undergone allotetraploidization, comparison of coding sequences from these two clawed (pipid) frogs provides a unique angle for exploring the molecular evolution of duplicate genes. Within our clone set, we have identified 445 gene trios, each comprised of an allotetraploidization-derived X. laevis gene pair and their shared X. tropicalis ortholog. Pairwise dN/dS, comparisons within trios show strong evidence for purifying selection acting on all three members. However, dN/dS ratios between X. laevis gene pairs are elevated relative to their X. tropicalis ortholog. This difference is highly significant and indicates an overall relaxation of selective pressures on duplicated gene pairs. We have found that the paralogs that have been lost since the tetraploidization event are enriched for several molecular functions, but have found no such enrichment in the extant paralogs. Approximately 14% of the paralogous pairs analyzed here also show differential expression indicative of subfunctionalization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".