Genome size and endopolyploidy evolution across the moss phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Compared with other plant lineages, bryophytes have very small genomes with little variation across species, and high levels of endopolyploid nuclei. This study is the first analysis of moss genome evolution over a broad taxonomic sampling using phylogenetic comparative methods. We aim to determine whether genome size evolution is unidirectional as well as examine whether genome size and endopolyploidy are correlated in mosses. METHODS: Genome size and endoreduplication index (EI) estimates were newly generated using flow cytometry from moss samples collected in Canada. Phylogenetic relationships between moss species were reconstructed using GenBank sequence data and maximum likelihood methods. Additional 1C-values were compiled from the literature and genome size and EI were mapped onto the phylogeny to reconstruct ancestral character states, test for phylogenetic signal and perform phylogenetic independent contrasts. KEY RESULTS: Genome size and EI were obtained for over 50 moss taxa. New genome size estimates are reported for 33 moss species and new EIs are reported for 20 species. In combination with data from the literature, genome sizes were mapped onto a phylogeny for 173 moss species with this analysis, indicating that genome size evolution in mosses does not appear to be unidirectional. Significant phylogenetic signal was detected for genome size when evaluated across the phylogeny, whereas phylogenetic signal was not detected for EI. Genome size and EI were not found to be significantly correlated when using phylogenetically corrected values. CONCLUSIONS: Significant phylogenetic signal indicates closely related mosses have more similar genome sizes and EI values. This study supports that DNA content in mosses is defined by small genomes that are highly endopolyploid, suggesting strong selective pressure to maintain these features. Further research is needed to understand the functional significance of DNA content evolution in mosses.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".