Most Compositae (Asteraceae) are descendants of a paleohexaploid and all share a paleotetraploid ancestor with the Calyceraceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Like many other flowering plants, members of the Compositae (Asteraceae) have a polyploid ancestry. Previous analyses found evidence for an ancient duplication or possibly triplication in the early evolutionary history of the family. We sought to better place this paleopolyploidy in the phylogeny and assess its nature. METHODS: We sequenced new transcriptomes for Barnadesia, the lineage sister to all other Compositae, and four representatives of closely related families. Using a recently developed algorithm, MAPS, we analyzed nuclear gene family phylogenies for evidence of paleopolyploidy. KEY RESULTS: We found that the previously recognized Compositae paleopolyploidy is also in the ancestry of the Calyceraceae. Our phylogenomic analyses uncovered evidence for a successive second round of genome duplication among all sampled Compositae except Barnadesia. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses of new samples with new tools provide a revised view of paleopolyploidy in the Compositae. Together with results from a high density Lactuca linkage map, our results suggest that the Compositae and Calyceraceae have a common paleotetraploid ancestor and that most Compositae are descendants of a paleohexaploid. Although paleohexaploids have been previously identified, this is the first example where the paleotetraploid and paleohexaploid lineages have survived over tens of millions of years. The complex polyploidy in the ancestry of the Compositae and Calyceraceae represents a unique opportunity to study the long-term evolutionary fates and consequences of different ploidal levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".