Patterns of genome size evolution versus fraction of repetitive elements in <i>statu nascendi</i> species: the case of the <i>willistoni</i> subgroup of <i>Drosophila</i> (Diptera, Drosophilidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome size evolution is known to be related with transposable elements, yet such relation in incipient species remains poorly understood. For decades, the willistoni subgroup of Drosophila has been a model for evolutionary studies because of the different evolutionary stages and degrees of reproductive isolation its species present. Our main question here was how speciation influences genome size evolution and the fraction of repetitive elements, with a focus on transposable elements. We quantitatively compared the mobilome of four species and two subspecies belonging to this subgroup with their genome size, and performed comparative phylogenetic analyses. Our results showed that genome size and the fraction of repetitive elements evolved according to the evolutionary history of these species, but the content of transposable elements showed some discrepancies. Signals of recent transposition events were detected for different superfamilies. Their low genomic GC content suggests that in these species transposable element mobilization might be facilitated by relaxed natural selection. Additionally, a possible role of the superfamily DNA/ TcMar-Tigger in the expansion of these genomes was also detected. We hypothesize that the undergoing process of speciation could be promoting the observed increase in the fraction of repetitive elements and, consequently, genome size.
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".