MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087203353 · doi:10.7554/elife.60474

The effect of hybridization on transposable element accumulation in an undomesticated fungal species

2020· article· en· W3087203353 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu Hénault, Souhir Marsit, Guillaume Charron, Christian R. Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalPROTEO
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTransposable elementBiologyHybridNatural selectionTransposition (logic)GeneticsExperimental evolutionEvolutionary biologyPopulationGenomePopulation genomicsMobile genetic elementsPopulation geneticsGeneGenomicsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transposable elements (TEs) are mobile genetic elements that can profoundly impact the evolution of genomes and species. A long-standing hypothesis suggests that hybridization could deregulate TEs and trigger their accumulation, although it received mixed support from studies mostly in plants and animals. Here, we tested this hypothesis in fungi using incipient species of the undomesticated yeast Saccharomyces paradoxus . Population genomic data revealed no signature of higher transposition in natural hybrids. As we could not rule out the elimination of past transposition increase signatures by natural selection, we performed a laboratory evolution experiment on a panel of artificial hybrids to measure TE accumulation in the near absence of selection. Changes in TE copy numbers were not predicted by the level of evolutionary divergence between the parents of a hybrid genotype. Rather, they were highly dependent on the individual hybrid genotypes, showing that strong genotype-specific deterministic factors govern TE accumulation in yeast hybrids.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations49
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207