Olfactory receptor subgenome and expression in a highly olfactory procellariiform seabird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procellariiform seabirds rely on their sense of smell for foraging and homing. Both genomes and transcriptomes yield important clues about how olfactory receptor (OR) subgenomes are shaped by natural and sexual selection, yet no transcriptomes have been made of any olfactory epithelium of any bird species thus far. Here, we assembled a high-quality genome and nasal epithelium transcriptome of the Leach's storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) to extensively characterize their OR repertoire. Using a depth-of-coverage-assisted counting method, we estimated over 160 intact OR genes (∼500 including OR fragments). This method reveals the highest number of intact OR genes and the lowest proportion of pseudogenes compared to other waterbirds studied, and suggests that rates of OR gene duplication vary between major clades of birds, with particularly high rates in passerines. OR expression patterns reveal two OR genes (OR6-6 and OR5-11) highly expressed in adults, and four OR genes (OR14-14, OR14-12, OR10-2, and OR14-9) differentially expressed between age classes of storm-petrels. All four genes differentially expressed between age classes were more highly expressed in chicks compared to adults, suggesting that OR genes may exhibit ontogenetic specializations. Three highly differentially expressed OR genes also had high copy number ratios, suggesting that expression variation may be linked to copy number in the genome. We provide better estimates of OR gene number by using a copy number-assisted counting method, and document ontogenetic changes in OR gene expression that may be linked to olfactory specialization. These results provide valuable insight into the expression, development, and macroevolution of olfaction in seabirds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".