The non‐visual opsins: eighteen in the ancestor of vertebrates, astonishing increase in ray‐finned fish, and loss in amniotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-visual opsins were discovered in the early 1990s. These genes play roles in circadian rhythm in mammals, seasonal reproduction in birds, light avoidance in amphibian larvae, and neural development in fish. However, the interpretation of such studies and the success of future work are compromised by the fact that non-visual opsin repertoires have not been properly characterized in any of these lineages. Here, we show that non-visual opsins from tetrapods and ray-finned fish are distributed among 18 monophyletic subfamilies. An amphibian sequence occurs in every subfamily, whereas mammalian orthologs occur in only seven. Species in the major ray-finned fish lineages, Holostei, Osteoglossomorpha, Otomorpha, Protacanthopterygii, and Neoteleostei, have large numbers of non-visual opsins (22-32 genes) as a result of gene duplication events including, but not limited to, the teleost genome duplication (TGD). In contrast to visual opsins, where lineage-specific duplication is common, the ray-finned fish non-visual opsin repertoire appears to have stabilized shortly after the TGD event and consequently even distantly related species have repertoires of similar size and composition. Most non-visual opsins have been named without the benefit of a phylogenetic perspective and, accordingly, major revisions are proposed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".