Evidence for Widespread Positive and Negative Selection in Coding and Conserved Noncoding Regions of Capsella grandiflora
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent that both positive and negative selection vary across different portions of plant genomes remains poorly understood. Here, we sequence whole genomes of 13 Capsella grandiflora individuals and quantify the amount of selection across the genome. Using an estimate of the distribution of fitness effects, we show that selection is strong in coding regions, but weak in most noncoding regions, with the exception of 5' and 3' untranslated regions (UTRs). However, estimates of selection on noncoding regions conserved across the Brassicaceae family show strong signals of selection. Additionally, we see reductions in neutral diversity around functional substitutions in both coding and conserved noncoding regions, indicating recent selective sweeps at these sites. Finally, using expression data from leaf tissue we show that genes that are more highly expressed experience stronger negative selection but comparable levels of positive selection to lowly expressed genes. Overall, we observe widespread positive and negative selection in coding and regulatory regions, but our results also suggest that both positive and negative selection on plant noncoding sequence are considerably rarer than in animal genomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".