MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386316754 · doi:10.1038/s42003-023-05264-5

Rapid and biased evolution of canalization during adaptive divergence revealed by dominance in gene expression variability during Arctic charr early development

2023· article· en· W4386316754 on OpenAlexaff
Quentin J.B. Horta-Lacueva, Zophonı́as O. Jónsson, Dagny A. V. Thorhölludottir, Benedikt Hallgrímsson, Kalina H. Kapralova

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersRannísHáskóli Íslands
KeywordsBiologyLimnetic zoneEvolutionary biologySympatryGene expressionGeneSalvelinusGeneticsEcologySympatric speciation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive evolution may be influenced by canalization, the buffering of developmental processes from environmental and genetic perturbations, but how this occurs is poorly understood. Here, we explore how gene expression variability evolves in diverging and hybridizing populations, by focusing on the Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) of Thingvallavatn, a classic case of divergence between feeding habitats. We report distinct profiles of gene expression variance for both coding RNAs and microRNAs between the offspring of two contrasting morphs (benthic/limnetic) and their hybrids reared in common conditions and sampled at two key points of cranial development. Gene expression variance in the hybrids is substantially affected by maternal effects, and many genes show biased expression variance toward the limnetic morph. This suggests that canalization, as inferred by gene expression variance, can rapidly diverge in sympatry through multiple gene pathways, which are associated with dominance patterns possibly biasing evolutionary trajectories and mitigating the effects of hybridization on adaptive evolution.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207