Sperm<i>Bindin</i>Divergence under Sexual Selection and Concerted Evolution in Sea Stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection associated with competition among males or sexual conflict between mates can create positive selection for high rates of molecular evolution of gamete recognition genes and lead to reproductive isolation between species. We analyzed coding sequence and repetitive domain variation in the gene encoding the sperm acrosomal protein bindin in 13 diverse sea star species. We found that bindin has a conserved coding sequence domain structure in all 13 species, with several repeated motifs in a large central region that is similar among all sea stars in organization but highly divergent among genera in nucleotide and predicted amino acid sequence. More bindin codons and lineages showed positive selection for high relative rates of amino acid substitution in genera with gonochoric outcrossing adults (and greater expected strength of sexual selection) than in selfing hermaphrodites. That difference is consistent with the expectation that selfing (a highly derived mating system) may moderate the strength of sexual selection and limit the accumulation of bindin amino acid differences. The results implicate both positive selection on single codons and concerted evolution within the repetitive region in bindin divergence, and suggest that both single amino acid differences and repeat differences may affect sperm-egg binding and reproductive compatibility.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".