An unexpected donor in the adaptive introgression candidate <i>Helianthus annuus</i> subsp. <i>texanus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hybridization is widely acknowledged as an important mechanism of acquiring adaptive variation. In Texas, the sunflower Helianthus annuus subsp. texanus is thought to have acquired herbivore resistance and morphological traits via introgression from a local congener, H. debilis . Here we test this hypothesis using whole genome sequencing data from across the entire range of H. annuus and possible donor species, as well as phenotypic data from a common garden study. We find that although it is morphologically convergent with H. debilis, H. a. texanus has conflicting signals of introgression. Genome wide tests (Patterson’s D and TreeMix) only find evidence of introgression from H. argophyllus (sister species to H. annuus and also sympatric), but not H. debilis , with the exception of one individual of 109 analysed. We further scanned the genome for localized signals of introgression using PCAdmix and found minimal but non-zero introgression from H. debilis and significant introgression from H. argophyllus . Putative introgressions mainly occur in high recombination regions as predicted by theory if introgressed ancestry contains maladaptive alleles. To reconcile the disparate findings of our analyses, we discuss potential test-specific confounding features, including introgression from other taxa. Given the paucity of introgression from H. debilis , we argue that the morphological convergence observed in Texas is likely independent of introgression.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".