Integrating natural history collections and comparative genomics to study the genetic architecture of convergent evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary convergence has been long considered primary evidence of adaptation driven by natural selection and provides opportunities to explore evolutionary repeatability and predictability. In recent years, there has been increased interest in exploring the genetic mechanisms underlying convergent evolution, in part, owing to the advent of genomic techniques. However, the current 'genomics gold rush' in studies of convergence has overshadowed the reality that most trait classifications are quite broadly defined, resulting in incomplete or potentially biased interpretations of results. Genomic studies of convergence would be greatly improved by integrating deep 'vertical', natural history knowledge with 'horizontal' knowledge focusing on the breadth of taxonomic diversity. Natural history collections have and continue to be best positioned for increasing our comprehensive understanding of phenotypic diversity, with modern practices of digitization and databasing of morphological traits providing exciting improvements in our ability to evaluate the degree of morphological convergence. Combining more detailed phenotypic data with the well-established field of genomics will enable scientists to make progress on an important goal in biology: to understand the degree to which genetic or molecular convergence is associated with phenotypic convergence. Although the fields of comparative biology or comparative genomics alone can separately reveal important insights into convergent evolution, here we suggest that the synergistic and complementary roles of natural history collection-derived phenomic data and comparative genomics methods can be particularly powerful in together elucidating the genomic basis of convergent evolution among higher taxa. This article is part of the theme issue 'Convergent evolution in the genomics era: new insights and directions'.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".