Is molecular evolution faster in the tropics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolutionary speed hypothesis (ESH) suggests that molecular evolutionary rates are higher among species inhabiting warmer environments. Previously, the ESH has been investigated using small numbers of latitudinally-separated sister lineages; in animals, these studies typically focused on subsets of Chordata and yielded mixed support for the ESH. This study analyzed public DNA barcode sequences from the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene for six of the largest animal phyla (Arthropoda, Chordata, Mollusca, Annelida, Echinodermata, and Cnidaria) and paired latitudinally-separated taxa together informatically. Of 8037 lineage pairs, just over half (51.6%) displayed a higher molecular rate in the lineage inhabiting latitudes closer to the equator, while the remainder (48.4%) displayed a higher rate in the higher-latitude lineage. To date, this study represents the most comprehensive analysis of latitude-related molecular rate differences across animals. While a statistically-significant pattern was detected from our large sample size, our findings suggest that the EHS may not serve as a strong universal mechanism underlying the latitudinal diversity gradient and that COI molecular clocks may generally be applied across latitudes. This study also highlights the merits of using automation to analyze large DNA barcode datasets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".