MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283807461 · doi:10.1111/tpj.15889

Spruce giga‐genomes: structurally similar yet distinctive with differentially expanding gene families and rapidly evolving genes

2022· article· en· W4283807461 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristina Gagalova, René L. Warren, Lauren Coombe, Johnathan Wong, Ka Ming Nip, Macaire M. S. Yuen, Justin G. A. Whitehill, José M. Celedón, Carol Ritland, Greg Taylor, Dean Cheng, Patrick Plettner, S. Austin Hammond, Hamid Mohamadi, Yongjun Zhao, Richard A. Moore, Andrew J. Mungall, Brian Boyle, Jérôme Laroche, Joan Cottrell, John Mackay, Manuel Lamothe, Sébastien Gérardi, Nathalie Isabel, Nathalie Pavy, Steven J.M. Jones, Jöerg Bohlmann, Jean Bousquet, İnanç Birol

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversité LavalUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsGeneGenomeBiologyGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGene familyComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spruces (Picea spp.) are coniferous trees widespread in boreal and mountainous forests of the northern hemisphere, with large economic significance and enormous contributions to global carbon sequestration. Spruces harbor very large genomes with high repetitiveness, hampering their comparative analysis. Here, we present and compare the genomes of four different North American spruces: the genome assemblies for Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) together with improved and more contiguous genome assemblies for white spruce (Picea glauca) and for a naturally occurring introgress of these three species known as interior spruce (P. engelmannii × glauca × sitchensis). The genomes were structurally similar, and a large part of scaffolds could be anchored to a genetic map. The composition of the interior spruce genome indicated asymmetric contributions from the three ancestral genomes. Phylogenetic analysis of the nuclear and organelle genomes revealed a topology indicative of ancient reticulation. Different patterns of expansion of gene families among genomes were observed and related with presumed diversifying ecological adaptations. We identified rapidly evolving genes that harbored high rates of non-synonymous polymorphisms relative to synonymous ones, indicative of positive selection and its hitchhiking effects. These gene sets were mostly distinct between the genomes of ecologically contrasted species, and signatures of convergent balancing selection were detected. Stress and stimulus response was identified as the most frequent function assigned to expanding gene families and rapidly evolving genes. These two aspects of genomic evolution were complementary in their contribution to divergent evolution of presumed adaptive nature. These more contiguous spruce giga-genome sequences should strengthen our understanding of conifer genome structure and evolution, as their comparison offers clues into the genetic basis of adaptation and ecology of conifers at the genomic level. They will also provide tools to better monitor natural genetic diversity and improve the management of conifer forests. The genomes of four closely related North American spruces indicate that their high similarity at the morphological level is paralleled by the high conservation of their physical genome structure. Yet, the evidence of divergent evolution is apparent in their rapidly evolving genomes, supported by differential expansion of key gene families and large sets of genes under positive selection, largely in relation to stimulus and environmental stress response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207