Parallel evolution of morphological and genomic selfing syndromes accompany the breakdown of heterostyly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary transitions from outcrossing to selfing in flowering plants have convergent morphological and genomic signatures and can involve parallel evolution within related lineages. Adaptive evolution of morphological traits is often assumed to evolve faster than nonadaptive features of the genomic selfing syndrome. We investigated phenotypic and genomic changes associated with transitions from distyly to homostyly in the Primula oreodoxa complex. We determined whether the transition to selfing occurred more than once and investigated stages in the evolution of morphological and genomic selfing syndromes using 22 floral traits and both nuclear and plastid genomic data from 25 populations. Two independent transitions were detected representing an earlier and a more recently derived selfing lineage. The older lineage exhibited classic features of the morphological and genomic selfing syndrome. Although features of both selfing syndromes were less developed in the younger selfing lineage, they exhibited parallel development with the older selfing lineage. This finding contrasts with the prediction that some genomic changes should lag behind adaptive changes to morphological traits. Our findings highlight the value of comparative studies on the timing and extent of transitions from outcrossing to selfing between related lineages for investigating the tempo of morphological and molecular 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".