A melting pot in the Arctic: Analysis of mitogenome variation in Arctic char (<i>Salvelinus alpinus</i>) reveals a 1000‐km contact zone between highly divergent lineages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Analysing the geographical distribution of evolutionary linages can reveal the potential locations of past refugia and colonisation routes and thus can improve understanding of current patterns of genetic variation and adaptive potential. We analysed 94 full mitogenome sequences to assess phylogeographic relationships amongst ten Arctic char ( Salvelinus alpinus ) populations, from western Greenland, eastern Greenland, Iceland and Norway. In addition, we excised D‐loop sequences, which were combined with previously published data in order to provide a circumpolar phylogeographical overview. In western Greenland, a secondary contact zone between Arctic and Atlantic evolutionary lineages was identified, spanning >1000 km, which geographically parallels a similar contact zone in Labrador, Canada. In eastern Greenland, Iceland and Norway, the Atlantic lineage was exclusively observed, whereas the northernmost western Greenland populations belonged to the Arctic lineage. The Arctic and Atlantic lineages were estimated to have diverged ca. 400,000 years BP, corresponding to the onset of the Saale glaciation, whereas the time of the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of the Arctic lineage was ca. 15,000 years BP. The Atlantic lineage comprised two subclades, with an estimated TMRCA of 60,000 BP, suggesting a complex history involving cryptic refugia or multiple recolonisations. Codon‐based tests revealed no evidence for positive selection within the 13 coding genes, indicating that there are no mitochondrial genetic adaptations within or between lineages. Higher genetic diversity observed within the contact zone likely correlates with higher standing genetic variation that could contribute to adaptive responses and morphological diversification, which Arctic char is renowned.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".