MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384407424 · doi:10.1101/2023.07.13.548797

Genome size and repeat content contribute to a complex architecture of flowering time in <i>Amaranthus tuberculatus</i>

2023· preprint· en· W4384407424 on OpenAlexafffund
Julia M. Kreiner, Solomiya Hnatovska, John R. Stinchcombe, Stephen Wright

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam Trusts
KeywordsBiologyGenome sizeGenomeAdaptation (eye)Copy-number variationEvolutionary biologyVariation (astronomy)Genetic variationGenome evolutionPhenotypic traitTransposable elementGeneGeneticsPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Genome size variation, largely driven by repeat content, is poorly understood within and among populations, limiting our understanding of its significance for adaptation. Here we characterize intraspecific variation in genome size and repeat content across 186 individuals of Amaranthus tuberculatus , a ubiquitous native weed that shows flowering time adaptation to climate across its range and in response to agriculture. K-mer based genome size estimates vary by up to 20% across individuals, with transposable elements, unknown repeats, and rDNAs being the primary contributors to this variability. The additive effect of this variation has important phenotypic consequences—individuals with more repeats, and thus larger genomes, show slower flowering times and growth rates. Compared to newly-characterized gene copy number and polygenic nucleotide changes underlying variation in flowering time, we show that genome size remains a modest but significant contributor to the genetic basis of flowering time. Differences in flowering time across sexes and habitats are not mirrored by genome size variation, but rather polygenic variation and a gene copy number variant within the ATP synthesis pathway. Repeat content nonetheless shows non-neutral distributions across the genome, and across latitudinal and environmental gradients, reflecting numerous governing processes that in turn influence quantitative genetic variation for phenotypes key to plant adaptation. Author Summary The remarkable and seemingly inconsequential variation in genome size across species has long been an enigma in evolutionary biology. Calling this viewpoint into question, correlations between genome size variation and traits linked to fitness are increasingly uncovered. While this suggests that DNA content itself may be a source of adaptive genetic variation, repeat elements that propagate at the cost of the host are known to largely mediate this variation and may thus limit adaptive potential. Here we look to disentangle these multi-level dynamics, characterizing repeat dynamics across the genome and among individuals across diverse collections of a widespread agricultural weed, linking repeat content to genome size variation, and characterizing the relative importance of its phenotypic consequences. In Amaranthus tuberculatus , we find non-neutral repeat distributions across individuals across the range, and while this repeat variation underlies both variation in genome size and flowering time, we show that it makes a relatively minor contribution to variation in a fitness-related trait across the landscape relative to monogenic and polygenic features. Together, this work broadens our perspective on the complex selective dynamics that govern intraspecific variation in genome size and traits key to fitness in plants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207