The contributions from the progenitor genomes of the mesopolyploid Brassiceae are evolutionarily distinct but functionally compatible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The members of the tribe Brassiceae share a whole genome triplication (WGT), and one proposed model for its formation is a “two-step” pair of hybridizations producing hexaploid descendants. However, evidence for this model is incomplete, and the evolutionary and functional constraints that drove evolution after the hexaploidy are even less understood. Here we report a new genome sequence of Crambe hispanica , a species sister to most sequenced Brassiceae. Using this new genome and three others that share the hexaploidy, we traced the history of gene loss after the WGT using POInT (the Polyploidy Orthology Inference Tool). We confirm the two-step formation model and infer that there was a significant temporal gap between those two allopolyploidizations, with about a third of the gene losses from the first two subgenomes occurring prior to the arrival of the third. We also, for the 90,000 individual genes in our study, make parental “subgenome” assignments, inferring, with measured uncertainty, which of the progenitor genomes of the allohexaploidy each gene derives from. We further show that each subgenome has a statistically distinguishable rate of homoeolog losses. There is little indication of functional distinction between the three subgenomes: the individual subgenomes show no patterns of functional enrichment, no excess of shared protein-protein or metabolic interactions between their members, and no biases in their likelihood of having experienced a recent selective sweep. We propose a “mix and match” model of allopolyploidy, where subgenome origin drives homoeolog loss propensities but where genes from different subgenomes function together without difficulty.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".