Peripheral structures in unlabelled trees and the accumulation of subgenomes in the evolution of polyploids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many angiosperms have undergone some series of polyploidization events over the course of their evolutionary history. In these genomes, especially those resulting from multiple autopolyploidization, it may be relatively easy to recognize all the ξ sets of n homeologous chromosomes, but it is much harder, if not impossible, to partition these chromosomes into n subgenomes, each representing one distinct genomic component of ξ chromosomes making up the original polyploid. Thus, if we wish to infer the polyploidization history of the genome, we could make use of all the gene trees inferred from the genes in one set of homeologous chromosomes to construct a consensus tree, but there is no evident way of combining the trees from the ξ different sets, because we have no labelling of the chromosomes that is known to be consistent across these sets. We suggest here that lacking a consistent leaf-labelling, the topological structure of the trees may display sufficient resemblance so that a higher level consensus could be revealing of evolutionary history. This would be especially true of the peripheral structures of the tree, likely representing events that occurred more recently and have thus been less obscured by subsequent evolutionary processes. Here, we present a statistical test to assess whether the subgenomes in a polyploid genome could have been added one at a time. The null hypothesis is that the accumulation of chromosomes follows a stochastic process in which transition from one generation to the next is through randomly choosing an edge, and then subdividing this edge in order to link the new internal vertex to a new external vertex. We analyze the probability distributions of a number of peripheral tree substructures, namely leaf- or terminal-pairs, triples and quadruples, arising from this stochastic process, in terms of some exact recurrences. We propose some conjectures regarding the asymptotic behaviours of these distributions. Applying our analysis to a sugarcane genome, we demonstrate that it is unlikely that the accumulation of subgenomes has occurred one at a 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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".