Consequences of polyploidy and divergence as revealed by cytogenetic mapping of tandem repeats in African clawed frogs (Xenopus, Pipidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Repetitive elements have been identified in several amphibian genomes using whole genome sequencing, but few studies have used cytogenetic mapping to visualize these elements in this vertebrate group. Here, we used fluorescence in situ hybridization and genomic data to map the U1 and U2 small nuclear RNAs and histone H3 in six species of African clawed frog (genus Xenopus), including, from subgenus Silurana, the diploid Xenopus tropicalis and its close allotetraploid relative X. calcaratus and, from subgenus Xenopus, the allotetraploid species X. pygmaeus, X. allofraseri, X. laevis, and X. muelleri. Results allowed us to qualitatively evaluate the relative roles of polyploidization and divergence in the evolution of repetitive elements because our focal species include allotetraploid species derived from two independent polyploidization events — one that is relatively young that gave rise to X. calcaratus and another that is older that gave rise to the other (older) allotetraploids. Our results demonstrated conserved loci number and position of signals in the species from subgenus Silurana; allotetraploid X. calcaratus has twice as many signals as diploid X. tropicalis. However, the content of repeats varied among the other allotetraploid species. We detected almost same number of signals in X. muelleri as in X. calcaratus and same number of signals in X. pygmaeus, X. allofraseri, X. laevis as in the diploid X. tropicalis. Overall, these results are consistent with the proposal that allopolyploidization duplicated these tandem repeats and that variation in their copy number was accumulated over time through reduction and expansion in a subset of the older allopolyploids.
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".