Sociality sculpts similar patterns of molecular evolution in two independently evolved lineages of eusocial bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While it is well known that the genome can affect social behavior, recent models posit that social lifestyles can, in turn, influence genome evolution. Here, we perform the most phylogenetically comprehensive comparative analysis of 16 bee genomes to date: incorporating two published and four new carpenter bee genomes (Apidae: Xylocopinae) for a first-ever genomic comparison with a monophyletic clade containing solitary through advanced eusocial taxa. We find that eusocial lineages have undergone more gene family expansions, feature more signatures of positive selection, and have higher counts of taxonomically restricted genes than solitary and weakly social lineages. Transcriptomic data reveal that caste-affiliated genes are deeply-conserved; gene regulatory and functional elements are more closely tied to social phenotype than phylogenetic lineage; and regulatory complexity increases steadily with social complexity. Overall, our study provides robust empirical evidence that social evolution can act as a major and surprisingly consistent driver of macroevolutionary genomic change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".