Genomic incompatibilities in the diploid and tetraploid offspring of the goldfish × common carp cross
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyploidy is much rarer in animals than in plants but it is not known why. The outcome of combining two genomes in vertebrates remains unpredictable, especially because polyploidization seldom shows positive effects and more often results in lethal consequences because viable gametes fail to form during meiosis. Fortunately, the goldfish (maternal) × common carp (paternal) hybrids have reproduced successfully up to generation 22, and this hybrid lineage permits an investigation into the genomics of hybridization and tetraploidization. The first two generations of these hybrids are diploids, and subsequent generations are tetraploids. Liver transcriptomes from four generations and their progenitors reveal chimeric genes (>9%) and mutations of orthologous genes. Characterizations of 18 randomly chosen genes from genomic DNA and cDNA confirm the chimera. Some of the chimeric and differentially expressed genes relate to mutagenesis, repair, and cancer-related pathways in 2nF1. Erroneous DNA excision between homologous parental genes may drive the high percentage of chimeric genes, or even more potential mechanisms may result in this phenomenon. Meanwhile, diploid offspring show paternal-biased expression, yet tetraploids show maternal-biased expression. These discoveries reveal that fast and unstable changes are mainly deleterious at the level of transcriptomes although some offspring still survive their genomic abnormalities. In addition, the synthetic effect of genome shock might have resulted in greatly reduced viability of 2nF2 hybrid offspring. The goldfish × common carp hybrids constitute an ideal system for unveiling the consequences of intergenomic interactions in hybrid vertebrate genomes and their fertility.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".