Chromosome divergence during evolution of the tetraploid clawed frogs, Xenopus mellotropicalis and Xenopus epitropicalis as revealed by Zoo-FISH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole genome duplication (WGD) generates new species and genomic redundancy. In African clawed frogs of the genus Xenopus, this phenomenon has been especially important in that (i) all but one extant species are polyploid and (ii) whole genome sequences of some species provide an evidence for genomic rearrangements prior to or after WGD. Within Xenopus in the subgenus Silurana, at least one allotetraploidization event gave rise to three extant tetraploid (2n = 4x = 40) species-Xenopus mellotropicalis, X. epitropicalis, and X. calcaratus-but it is not yet clear the degree to which these tetraploid genomes experienced rearrangements prior to or after allotetraploidization. To explore genome evolution during diversification of these species, we performed cytogenetic analyses of X. mellotropicalis, including assessment of the localization of nucleolar organizer region, chromosome banding, and determination of the p/q arm ratios for each chromosome pair. We compared these data to a previously characterized karyotype of X. epitropicalis. Morphometric, C-banding and Zoo-FISH data support a previously hypothesized common allotetraploid predecessor of these species. Zoo-FISH with whole chromosome painting (WCP) probes derived from the closely related diploid species X. tropicalis confirmed the existence of ten chromosomal quartets in X. mellotropicalis somatic cells, as expected by its ploidy level and tetraploid ancestry. The p/q arm ratio of chromosome 2a was found to be substantially different between X. mellotropicalis (0.81) and X. epitropicalis (0.67), but no substantial difference between these two species was detected in this ratio for the homoeologous chromosome pair 2b, or for other chromosome pairs. Additionally, we identified variation between these two species in the locations of a heterochromatic block on chromosome pair 2a. These results are consistent with a dynamic history of genomic rearrangements before and/or after genome duplication, a surprising finding given the otherwise relatively conserved genomic structure of most frogs.
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 | 0.000 | 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".