Demystifying phenotypes: The comparative genomics of evo-devo
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental geneticists have spearheaded the synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology, a.k.a 'evo-devo', leading to a wealth of recent insights about how morphological diversity has evolved. However, there exists a gap between these disciplines, and evo-devo has not benefited from an integration of the principles derived from population genetics and molecular evolution. In order to contribute to the remediation of this deficiency, we recently performed a study investigating how genes diverge among closely related species of Drosophila as a function of when they are expressed during development. We found that patterns of genetic divergence parallels morphology: interspecific divergence accumulates as development progresses. We also sought to test whether this positive gradient of divergence over ontogeny is best explained by purifying selection constraining the divergence of early-expressed genes or positive selection driving the evolution of those expressed later. Interestingly, we found evidence that both processes occur simultaneously. We argue that comparative genomics approaches, by juxtaposing gene- and phenotypelevel divergence, particularly among closely related species, have much to contribute to the ongoing evo-devo synthesis, complementing traditional genetics-based techniques with largescale screening analyses uncovering the mechanisms underlying developmental change.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it