Genomic evidence reveals three sequential W-autosome fusions in Heliconius butterflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex chromosomes are evolutionarily labile in many animals and sometimes fuse with autosomes, creating so-called neo-sex chromosomes. Fusions between sex chromosomes and autosomes have been proposed to reduce sexual conflict and to promote adaptation and reproductive isolation among species. Recently, advances in genomics have fuelled the discovery of such fusions across the tree of life. Here, we discovered multiple fusions leading to neo-sex chromosomes in the sara/sapho clade of the classical adaptive radiation of Heliconius butterflies. Heliconius butterflies generally have 21 chromosomes with very high synteny. However, the five species in the sapho subclade show large variation in chromosome number ranging from 21 to 60. We found that the W chromosome is fused with chromosome 4 in all of them. Two sister species pairs showed subsequent fusions between the W and chromosomes 9 or 14, respectively. These sequential fusions between autosomes and sex chromosomes make Heliconius butterflies an ideal system for studying the role of neo-sex chromosomes in adaptive radiations and the degeneration of sex chromosomes over time. Our findings emphasize the capability of WGS technology to detect neo-sex chromosomes even when sex chromosomes are not explicitly assembled.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".