Withdrawn as Duplicate: The many nuanced evolutionary consequences of duplicated genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene duplication is seen as a major source of structural and functional divergence in genome evolution. Under the conventional models of sub or neofunctionalization, functional changes arise in one of the duplicates after duplication. However, we suggest here that the presence of a duplicated gene can result in functional changes to its interacting partners. We explore this hypothesis by in silico evolution of a heterodimer when one member of the interacting pair is duplicated. We examine how a range of selection pressures and protein structures leads to differential patterns of evolutionary divergence. We find that a surprising number of distinct evolutionary trajectories can be observed even in a simple three member system. Further, we observe that selection to correct dosage imbalance can affect the evolution of the initial function in several unexpected ways. For example, if a duplicate is under selective pressure to avoid binding its original binding partner, this can lead to changes in the binding interface of a nonduplicated interacting partner to exclude the duplicate. Hence, independent of the fate of the duplicate, its presence can impact how the original function operates. Additionally, we introduce a conceptual framework to describe how interacting partners cope with dosage imbalance after duplication. Contextualizing our results within this framework reveals that the evolutionary path taken by a duplicate’s interacting partners is highly stochastic in nature. Consequently, the fate of duplicate genes may not only be controlled by their own ability to accumulate mutations but also by how interacting partners cope with them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".