Simple sequence repeats drive genome plasticity and promote adaptive evolution in penaeid shrimp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simple sequence repeats (SSRs) are rare (approximately 1%) in most genomes and are generally considered to have no function. However, penaeid shrimp genomes have a high proportion of SSRs (>23%), raising the question of whether these SSRs play important functional and evolutionary roles in these SSR-rich species. Here, we show that SSRs drive genome plasticity and adaptive evolution in two penaeid shrimp species, Fenneropenaeus chinensis and Litopenaeus vannamei. Assembly and comparison of genomes of these two shrimp species at the chromosome-level revealed that transposable elements serve as carriers for SSR expansion, which is still occurring. The remarkable genome plasticity identified herein might have been shaped by significant SSR expansions. SSRs were also found to regulate gene expression by multi-omics analyses, and be responsible for driving adaptive evolution, such as the variable osmoregulatory capacities of these shrimp under low-salinity stress. These data provide strong evidence that SSRs are an important driver of the adaptive evolution in penaeid shrimp.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".