Macroevolution of NLR genes in family Fabaceae provides evidence of clade specific expansion and contraction of NLRome in Vicioid clade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole genome duplication plays a significant role in plant genome evolution by providing raw materials that can be modified by natural or artificial selection. Nucleotide binding site leucine rich repeat receptor (NLRs) like other gene families are clusters of genes created by duplication and their size reflects the number of duplicated genes. NLR genes encode immune receptors that facilitate identification and binding of effector compounds produced by pathogen as a part of effector triggered immunity (ETI). The accurate identification and characterization of NLR genes substantially contributes to the repertoire of resistance and improves production. The ancestors of Fabaceae family have underwent whole genome duplication (WGD) approximately 58.5 million years ago. In this study, we focused on the subsequent effects of WGD on the evolution of NLR genes within the Vicioid clade, which consists of various legume crops such as chickpea, clover, alfalfa, and pea. The Vicioid clade is divided into three major tribes: Cicereae, Fabeae, and Trifolieae. The analysis of 22 species from the Vicioid clade revealed an overall contraction of the NLRome (the complete set of NLR genes) in members of the Cicereae and Fabeae tribes. This contraction aligns with previous observations that WGD events are often followed by diploidization, leading to a reduced number of duplicated genes. Contrary to this contraction trend, tribe Trifolieae have shown large scale expansion of NLRome irrespective to their genome size. Additionally, the primary diversification of relatively conserved NLR gene subclasses, including helper genes (CCR-NLR) and CCG10-NLR, was reported. Comprehensive evolutionary analysis suggests that NLRome expansion have occurred in during recent 1-6 Mya probably due to their higher substitutions per site per year in Trifolieae. We further hypothesized that this higher rate directed accelerated gene duplications after speciation from their common ancestor and later gene conversion and asymmetric recombination played an active role in subgroup diversification.
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".