Genomic evidence that blind cavefishes are not wrecks of ancient life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cavefishes often have modified eyes, from small but otherwise functional, to highly degenerate structures embedded in a connective tissue and covered by skin. Darwin assumed that these animals are ‘wrecks of ancient life’, but several genomic studies suggests they are not ‘ancient’. The most radical dating shift is for populations of a Mexican cavefish, Astyanax mexicanus , that have been recently estimated to be at the most a few tens of thousands years old. Despite having highly degenerate eyes, the eye-specific genes of A. mexicanus have low levels of decay. Other blind cavefishes we have examined so far are even older, but also can be dated to the Pleistocene. Here, we estimated the age of blindness of two additional fish species by the level of decay of eye-specific genes. Many pseudogenes were identified in the amblyopsid Typhlichthys subterraneus , suggesting that blindness evolved a few million years ago. In contrast, the blind cichlid Lamprologus lethops appears to be a new case of very recent and rapid eye regression, which occurred in deep river water, an environment similar to caves. Genome-wide analyses support the hypothesis that blindness in cavefishes is never very ancient, and ranges from the Early Pliocene to Late Pleistocene. Together with the description of hundreds of cavefish species, our results suggest that surface fishes were able to recurrently and rapidly adapt to caves and similar small dark ecosystems but the resulting highly specialized blind species with a limited distribution may be evolutionary dead-ends in a relatively short time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".