MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2965995527 · doi:10.1101/726240

Abiotic environmental adaptation in vertebrates is characterized by functional genomic constraint

2019· preprint· en· W2965995527 on OpenAlexaff
Katharina C. Wollenberg Valero, Joan Garcia‐Porta, Iker Irisarri, Lauric Feugere, Adam Bates, Sebastian Kirchhof, Olga Jovanović Glavaš, Panayiotis Pafilis, Sabrina F. Samuel, Johannes Müller, Miguel Vences, Alexander P. Turner, Pedro Beltrán-Álvarez, Kenneth B. Storey

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersUppsala Multidisciplinary Center for Advanced Computational ScienceCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of Hull
KeywordsBiologyAdaptation (eye)Evolutionary biologyGeneAbiotic componentAbiotic stressGenomicsGenomeLocal adaptationComputational biologyGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding the genomic basis of adaptation to different abiotic environments is important for understanding organismal responses to current short-term environmental fluctuations. Using functional and comparative genomics approaches, we here investigated whether genomic adaptation to a set of environmental parameters is contingent across vertebrate genomes or, alternatively, contains an element of evolutionary constraint that would be evident through recurrent involvement of specific subsets of genes and functions in adaptation to similar environments. We first identified 200 genes with signatures of selection from transcriptomes of 24 species of lacertid lizards with known adaptations in preferred temperature, correlated with thermal environment experienced by these lizards in their range. In order to discern genes adapting to climate from other selective factors, we then performed a meta-analysis of 1100 genes with signatures of selection obtained from-omics studies in vertebrate species adapted to different abiotic environments. We found that this gene set formed a tightly connected interactome which was to 23% enriched in predicted functions of adaptation to climate and to 18% involved in organismal stress response. We found a much higher degree of recurrent use of identical genes (43.6%) and functional similarity than expected by chance, and no clear division between genes used in ectotherm and endotherm physiological strategies. 171 out of 200 genes of Lacertidae were part of this network, indicating that a comparative genomic approach can help to disentangle genes functionally related to adaptation to different abiotic environments from other selective factors. These results furthermore highlight an important role of genomic constraint in adaptation to the abiotic environment, and narrows the set of candidate markers to be used in future research on environmental adaptability related to climate change. Significance Statement / Nontechnical summary While the convergent evolution of phenotypes in similar environments is a well-studied phenomenon, the genomic basis of such common phenotypes and physiologies is still enigmatic. The prevalent notion is that re-use of the same genes to adapt to similar environments in different species is about as likely as winning the lottery – but organismal systems are also, to some extent, comparable between different species such as man and fruit fly through shared genes and gene functions. In this paper, we test whether constraint or contingency is more prevalent in genomic adaptation of vertebrates to aspects of their abiotic environment. We find evidence for strong functional constraint and stress responsiveness of the genes involved, which might help understand how currently experienced stress under changing climates may result in future adaptation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations→French-language works237,207→