Chloroplast competition is controlled by lipid biosynthesis in evening primroses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most eukaryotes, organellar genomes are transmitted preferentially by the mother, but molecular mechanisms and evolutionary forces underlying this fundamental biological principle are far from understood. It is believed that biparental inheritance promotes competition between the cytoplasmic organelles and allows the spread of so-called selfish cytoplasmic elements. Those can be, for example, fast-replicating or aggressive chloroplasts (plastids) that are incompatible with the hybrid nuclear genome and therefore maladaptive. Here we show that the ability of plastids to compete against each other is a metabolic phenotype determined by extremely rapidly evolving genes in the plastid genome of the evening primrose Oenothera . Repeats in the regulatory region of accD (the plastid-encoded subunit of the acetyl-CoA carboxylase, which catalyzes the first and rate-limiting step of lipid biosynthesis), as well as in ycf2 (a giant reading frame of still unknown function), are responsible for the differences in competitive behavior of plastid genotypes. Polymorphisms in these genes influence lipid synthesis and most likely profiles of the plastid envelope membrane. These in turn determine plastid division and/or turnover rates and hence competitiveness. This work uncovers cytoplasmic drive loci controlling the outcome of biparental chloroplast transmission. Here, they define the mode of chloroplast inheritance, as plastid competitiveness can result in uniparental inheritance (through elimination of the “weak” plastid) or biparental inheritance (when two similarly “strong” plastids are transmitted).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".