The genome sizes of ostracod crustaceans correlate with body size and phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within animals a positive correlation between genome size and body size has been detected in several taxa but not in others, such that it remains unknown how pervasive this pattern may be. Here we provide another example of a positive relationship, in a group of crustaceans whose genome sizes have not previously been investigated. We analyze genome size estimates for 46 species across Class Ostracoda, including 29 new estimates made using Feulgen image analysis densitometry and flow cytometry. Genome sizes in this group range ~80-fold, a level of variability that is otherwise not seen in crustaceans with the exception of some malacostracan orders. We find a strong positive correlation between genome size and body size across all species, including after phylogenetic correction. We additionally detect evidence of XX/XO sex determination in all three species of myodocopids where male and female genome sizes were estimated. On average, genome sizes are larger but less variable in myodocopids than in podocopids, and marine ostracods have larger genomes than freshwater species, but this appears to be explained by phylogenetic inertia. The relationship between phylogeny, genome size, body size, and habitat is complex in this system, and will benefit from additional data collection across various habitats and ostracod taxa.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".