Identification of sex-determining loci in hybridizing <i>Catostomus</i> fish species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 Abstract Despite the near-universality of gonochorism (separate sexes) in eukaryotic organisms, the underlying mechanisms of sex determination are poorly understood and highly variable in some taxa. Sex determination mechanisms may promote or impede reproductive isolation depending on whether mechanisms are similar between related species, so identifying genomic regions associated with sex determination is especially relevant for understanding evolutionary diversification and hybridization between closely related species. In Catostomus fishes, contemporary hybridization is variable and extensive, but factors influencing hybridization dynamics are not fully understood. In the present study, we aim to describe the genetic basis of sex determination in bluehead ( Catostomus discobolus ) and white suckers ( Catostomus commersonii ) to understand the potential impact of sex determination on reproductive isolation. We used genotyping-by-sequencing data from Catostomus species and their hybrids to identify regions of the genome associated with sex using a genome-wide association study and the identification of sex-specific loci. We identified a genetic basis of sex determination in Catostomus fishes, with a region of the genome significantly associating with sex in bluehead suckers. This region is suggestive of a master sex-determining region in bluehead suckers but is not significant in white suckers, implying that either the sex-determining region of the genome differs in these two species that hybridize, or that sample size was insufficient to identify this genomic region in white suckers. By describing and comparing sex-determination systems across Catostomus fish species, we highlight the relationship between sex determining systems and hybridization in closely related fish species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".