RecPD: A Recombination-aware measure of phylogenetic diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical step in studying biological features (e.g., genetic variants, gene families, metabolic capabilities, or taxa) is assessing their diversity and distribution among a sample of individuals. Accurate assessments of these patterns are essential for linking features to traits or outcomes of interest and understanding their functional impact. Consequently, it is of crucial importance that the measures employed for quantifying feature diversity can perform robustly under any evolutionary scenario. However, the standard measures used for quantifying and comparing the distribution of features, such as prevalence, phylogenetic diversity, and related approaches, either do not take into consideration evolutionary history, or assume strictly vertical patterns of inheritance. Consequently, these approaches cannot accurately assess diversity for features that have undergone recombination or horizontal transfer. To address this issue, we have devised RecPD, a novel recombination-aware phylogenetic-diversity statistic for measuring the distribution and diversity of features under all evolutionary scenarios. RecPD utilizes ancestral-state reconstruction to map the presence / absence of features onto ancestral nodes in a species tree, and then identifies potential recombination events in the evolutionary history of the feature. We also derive several related measures from RecPD that can be used to assess and quantify evolutionary dynamics and correlation of feature evolutionary histories. We used simulation studies to show that RecPD reliably reconstructs feature evolutionary histories under diverse recombination and loss scenarios. We then applied RecPD in two diverse real-world scenarios including a preliminary study type III effector protein families secreted by the plant pathogenic bacterium Pseudomonas syringae and growth phenotypes of the Pseudomonas genus and demonstrate that prevalence is an inadequate measure that obscures the potential impact of recombination. We believe RecPD will have broad utility for revealing and quantifying complex evolutionary processes for features at any biological level.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".