Divergent subgenome evolution after allopolyploidization in African clawed frogs (<i>Xenopus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole genome duplication (WGD), the doubling of the nuclear DNA of a species, contributes to biological innovation by creating genetic redundancy. One mode of WGD is allopolyploidization, wherein each genome from two ancestral species becomes a 'subgenome' of a polyploid descendant species. The evolutionary trajectory of a duplicated gene that arises from WGD is influenced both by natural selection that may favour redundant, new or partitioned functions, and by gene silencing (pseudogenization). Here, we explored how these two phenomena varied over time and within allopolyploid genomes in several allotetraploid clawed frog species (Xenopus). Our analysis demonstrates that, across these polyploid genomes, purifying selection was greatly relaxed compared to a diploid outgroup, was asymmetric between each subgenome, and that coding regions are shorter in the subgenome with more relaxed purifying selection. As well, we found that the rate of gene loss was higher in the subgenome under weaker purifying selection and that this rate has remained relatively consistent over time after WGD. Our findings provide perspective from recently evolved vertebrates on the evolutionary forces that likely shape allopolyploid genomes on other branches of the tree of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".