Using GC Content to Compare Recombination Patterns on the Sex Chromosomes and Autosomes of the Guppy, <i>Poecilia reticulata</i> , and Its Close Outgroup Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic and physical mapping of the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) have shown that recombination patterns differ greatly between males and females. Crossover events occur evenly across the chromosomes in females, but in male meiosis they are restricted to the tip furthest from the centromere of each chromosome, creating very high recombination rates per megabase, as in pseudoautosomal regions of mammalian sex chromosomes. We used GC content to indirectly infer recombination patterns on guppy chromosomes, based on evidence that recombination is associated with GC-biased gene conversion, so that genome regions with high recombination rates should be detectable by high GC content. We used intron sequences and third positions of codons to make comparisons between sequences that are matched, as far as possible, and are all probably under weak selection. Almost all guppy chromosomes, including the sex chromosome (LG12), have very high GC values near their assembly ends, suggesting high recombination rates due to strong crossover localization in male meiosis. Our test does not suggest that the guppy XY pair has stronger crossover localization than the autosomes, or than the homologous chromosome in the close relative, the platyfish (Xiphophorus maculatus). We therefore conclude that the guppy XY pair has not recently undergone an evolutionary change to a different recombination pattern, or reduced its crossover rate, but that the guppy evolved Y-linkage due to acquiring a male-determining factor that also conferred the male crossover pattern. We also identify the centromere ends of guppy chromosomes, which were not determined in the genome assembly.
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".