Population genomic scans reveal novel genes underlie convergent flowering time evolution in the introduced range of <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A long-standing question in evolutionary biology is whether the evolution of convergent phenotypes results from selection on the same heritable genetic components. Using whole genome sequencing and genome scans, we tested whether the evolution of parallel longitudinal flowering time clines in the native and introduced ranges of Arabidopsis thaliana has a similar genetic basis. We found that common variants of large effect on flowering time in the native range do not appear to have been under recent strong selection in the introduced range. Genes in regions of the genome that are under selection for flowering time are also not enriched for functions related to development or environmental sensing. We instead identified a set of 53 new candidate genes putatively linked to the evolution of flowering time in the species introduced range. A high degree of conditional neutrality of flowering time variants between the native and introduced range may preclude parallel evolution at the level of genes. Overall, neither gene pleiotropy nor available standing genetic variation appears to have restricted the evolution of flowering time in the introduced range to high frequency variants from the native range or to known flowering time pathway genes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".