Hybrid Incompatibilities and Transgressive Gene Expression Between Two Closely Related Subspecies of Drosophila
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide assays of expression between species and their hybrids have identified genes that become either over- or underexpressed relative to the parental species (i.e., transgressive). Transgressive expression in hybrids is of interest because it highlights possible changes in gene regulation linked to hybrid dysfunction. Previous studies inDrosophilathat used long-diverged species pairs with complete or nearly complete isolation (i.e., full sterility and partial inviability of hybrids) and high-levels of genome misregulation have found correlations between expression and coding sequence divergence. The work highlighted the possible effects of directional selection driving sequence divergence and transgressive expression. Whether the same is true for taxa at early stages of divergence that have only achieved partial isolation remains untested. Here, we reanalyze previously published genome expression data and available genome sequence reads from a pair of partially isolated subspecies ofDrosophilato compare expression and sequence divergence. We find a significant correlation in rates of expression and sequence evolution, but no support for directional selection driving transgressive expression in hybrids. We find that most transgressive genes in hybrids show no differential expression between parental subspecies and used SNP data to explore the role of stabilizing selection through compensatory mutations. We also examine possible misregulation through cascade effects that could be driven by interacting gene networks or co-option of off-targetcis-regulatory elements.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".