Autopolyploidy genome duplication preserves other ancient genome duplications in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Salmonids (e.g. Atlantic salmon, Pacific salmon, and trouts) have a long legacy of genome duplication. In addition to three ancient genome duplications that all teleosts are thought to share, salmonids have had one additional genome duplication. We explored a methodology for untangling these duplications from each other to better understand them in Atlantic salmon. In this methodology, homeologous regions (paralogous/duplicated genomic regions originating from a whole genome duplication) from the most recent genome duplication were assumed to have duplicated genes at greater density and have greater sequence similarity. This assumption was used to differentiate duplicated gene pairs in Atlantic salmon that are either from the most recent genome duplication or from earlier duplications. From a comparison with multiple vertebrate species, it is clear that Atlantic salmon have retained more duplicated genes from ancient genome duplications than other vertebrates--often at higher density in the genome and containing fewer synonymous mutations. It may be that polysomic inheritance is the mechanism responsible for maintaining ancient gene duplicates in salmonids. Polysomic inheritance (when multiple chromosomes pair during meiosis) is thought to be relatively common in salmonids compared to other vertebrate species. These findings illuminate how genome duplications may not only increase the number of duplicated genes, but may also be involved in the maintenance of them from previous genome duplications as well.
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) | 0.001 | 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".