Testing candidate genes linked to corolla shape variation of a pollinator shift in Rhytidophyllum (Gesneriaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floral adaptations to specific pollinators like corolla shape variation often result in reproductive isolation and thus speciation. But despite their ecological importance, the genetic bases of corolla shape transitions are still poorly understood, especially outside model species. Hence, our goal was to identify candidate genes potentially involved in corolla shape variation between two closely related species of the Rhytidophyllum genus (Gesneriaceae family) from the Antilles with contrasting pollination strategies. Rhytidophyllum rupincola has a tubular corolla and is strictly pollinated by hummingbirds, whereas R. auriculatum has more open flowers and is pollinated by hummingbirds, bats, and insects. We surveyed the literature and used a comparative transcriptome sequence analysis of synonymous and non-synonymous nucleotide substitutions to obtain a list of genes that could explain floral variation between R. auriculatum and R. rupincola. We then tested their association with corolla shape variation using QTL mapping in a F2 hybrid population. Out of 28 genes tested, three were found to be good candidates because of a strong association with corolla shape: RADIALIS, GLOBOSA, and JAGGED. Although the role of these genes in Rhytidophyllum corolla shape variation remains to be confirmed, these findings are a first step towards identifying the genes that have been under selection by pollinators and thus involved in reproductive isolation and speciation in this genus.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".