Evolutionary analyses of visual opsin genes in anurans reveals diversity and positive selection suggestive of functional adaptation to distinct light environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Among major vertebrate groups, anurans (frogs and toads) are understudied with regards to their visual systems and little is known about variation among species that differ in ecology. We sampled North American anurans representing diverse evolutionary and life histories that likely possess visual systems adapted to meet different ecological needs. Using standard molecular techniques, visual opsin genes, which encode the protein component of visual pigments, were obtained from anuran retinas. Additionally, we extracted the visual opsins from publicly available genome and transcriptome assemblies, further increasing the phylogenetic and ecological diversity of our dataset. We found that anurans consistently express four visual opsin genes ( RH1 , LWS , SWS1 , and SWS2 , but not RH2 ) even though reported photoreceptor complements vary widely among species. We found the first evidence of visual opsin duplication in an amphibian with the duplication of the LWS gene in the African bullfrog, which had distinct LWS copies on the sex chromosomes. The proteins encoded by these genes showed considerable sequence variation among species, including at sites known to shift the spectral sensitivity of visual pigments in other vertebrates and thus mediate dim-light and color vision. Using molecular evolutionary analyses of selection (d N /d S ) we found significant evidence for positive selection at a subset of sites in the dim-light rod opsin gene RH1 and the long wavelength sensitive cone opsin gene LWS . The function of sites inferred to be under positive selection are largely unknown, but a few are likely to affect spectral sensitivity and other visual pigment functions based on proximity to previously identified sites in other vertebrates. The observed variation cannot fully be explained by evolutionary relationships among species alone. Taken together, our results suggest that other ecological factors, such as habitat and life history, as well as behaviour, may be driving changes to anuran visual systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".