Comparative analysis reveals that polyploidy does not decelerate diversification in fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the proliferation of the species-rich teleost fish has been ascribed to an ancient genome duplication event at the base of this group, the broader impact of polyploidy on fish evolution and diversification remains poorly understood. Here, we investigate the association between polyploidy and diversification in several fish lineages: the sturgeons (Acipenseridae: Acipenseriformes), the botiid loaches (Botiidae: Cypriniformes), Cyprininae fishes (Cyprinidae: Cypriniformes) and the salmonids (Salmonidae: Salmoniformes). Using likelihood-based evolutionary methodologies, we co-estimate speciation and extinction rates associated with polyploid vs. diploid fish lineages. Family-level analysis of Acipenseridae and Botiidae revealed no significant difference in diversification rates between polyploid and diploid relatives, while analysis of the subfamily Cyprininae revealed higher polyploid diversification. Additionally, order-level analysis of the polyploid Salmoniformes and its diploid sister clade, the Esociformes, did not support a significantly different net diversification rate between the two groups. Taken together, our results suggest that polyploidy is generally not associated with decreased diversification in fish - a pattern that stands in contrast to that previously observed in plants. While there are notable differences in the time frame examined in the two studies, our results suggest that polyploidy is associated with different diversification patterns in these two major branches of the eukaryote tree of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".