Relative timing information and orthology in evolutionary scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evolutionary scenarios describing the evolution of a family of genes within a collection of species comprise the mapping of the vertices of a gene tree T to vertices and edges of a species tree S. The relative timing of the last common ancestors of two extant genes (leaves of T) and the last common ancestors of the two species (leaves of S) in which they reside is indicative of horizontal gene transfers (HGT) and ancient duplications. Orthologous gene pairs, on the other hand, require that their last common ancestors coincides with a corresponding speciation event. The relative timing information of gene and species divergences is captured by three colored graphs that have the extant genes as vertices and the species in which the genes are found as vertex colors: the equal-divergence-time (EDT) graph, the later-divergence-time (LDT) graph and the prior-divergence-time (PDT) graph, which together form an edge partition of the complete graph. RESULTS: Here we give a complete characterization in terms of informative and forbidden triples that can be read off the three graphs and provide a polynomial time algorithm for constructing an evolutionary scenario that explains the graphs, provided such a scenario exists. While both LDT and PDT graphs are cographs, this is not true for the EDT graph in general. We show that every EDT graph is perfect. While the information about LDT and PDT graphs is necessary to recognize EDT graphs in polynomial-time for general scenarios, this extra information can be dropped in the HGT-free case. However, recognition of EDT graphs without knowledge of putative LDT and PDT graphs is NP-complete for general scenarios. In contrast, PDT graphs can be recognized in polynomial-time. We finally connect the EDT graph to the alternative definitions of orthology that have been proposed for scenarios with horizontal gene transfer. With one exception, the corresponding graphs are shown to be colored cographs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".