Ancestral Flowering Plant Chromosomes and Gene Orders Based on Generalized Adjacencies and Chromosomal Gene Co-Occurrences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recurrent whole genome duplication and the ensuing loss of redundant genes—fractionation—complicate efforts to reconstruct the gene orders and chromosomes of the ancestors associated with the nodes of a phylogeny. Loss of genes disrupts the gene adjacencies key to current techniques. With our RACCROCHE pipeline, instead of starting with the inference of short ancestral segments, we suggest delaying the choice of gene adjacencies while we accumulate many more syntenically validated generalized (gapped) adjacencies. We obtain longer ancestral contigs using maximum weight matching (MWM). Similarly, we do not construct chromosomes by successively piecing together contigs into larger segments, but rather compile counts of pairwise contig co-occurrences on the set of extant genomes and use these to cluster the contigs. Chromosome-level contig assemblies for a monoploid genome emerge naturally at each node of the phylogeny and the contigs then can be ordered along the chromosome. Sampling alternative MWM solutions, visualizing heat maps, and applying gap statistics allow us to estimate the number of chromosomes in the reconstruction. We introduce several measures of quality: length of contigs, continuity of contig structure on successive ancestors, coverage of the extant genome by the reconstruction, and rearrangement relations among the inferred chromosomes. The reconstructed ancestors are visualized by painting the ancestral projections on the descendant genomes. We submit genomes drawn from a broad range of monocot orders to our pipeline, confirming the tetraploidization event “tau” in the stem lineage between the alismatids and the lilioids. We show additional applications to the Solanaceae and to four Brassica genomes, producing evidence about the monoploid ancestor in each case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".