Horseshoe crab genomes reveal the evolution of genes and microRNAs after three rounds of whole genome duplication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole genome duplication (WGD) has occurred in relatively few sexually reproducing invertebrates. Consequently, the WGD that occurred in the common ancestor of horseshoe crabs ~135 million years ago provides a rare opportunity to decipher the evolutionary consequences of a duplicated invertebrate genome. Here, we present a high-quality genome assembly for the mangrove horseshoe crab Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda (1.7 Gb, N50 = 90.2 Mb, with 89.8% sequences anchored to 16 pseudomolecules, 2n = 32), and a resequenced genome of the tri-spine horseshoe crab Tachypleus tridentatus (1.7 Gb, N50 = 109.7 Mb). Analyses of gene families, microRNAs, and synteny show that horseshoe crabs have undergone three rounds (3R) of WGD. Comparison of C. rotundicauda and T. tridentatus genomes from populations from several geographic locations further elucidates the diverse fates of both coding and noncoding genes. Together, the present study represents a cornerstone for improving our understanding of invertebrate WGD events on the evolutionary fates of genes and microRNAs, at both the individual and population level. We also provide improved genomic resources for horseshoe crabs, of applied value for breeding programs and conservation of this fascinating and unusual invertebrate lineage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".