MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390984094 · doi:10.1101/2024.01.15.575583

Genomic evidence for supergene control of Darwin′s 'complex marriage arrangement' – the tristylous floral polymorphism

2024· preprint· en· W4390984094 on OpenAlexafffund
Haoran Xue, Yunchen Gong, Stephen Wright, Spencer C. H. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoGenome Canada
KeywordsAlleleGeneticsBiologyLocus (genetics)GeneEpistasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tristyly is a sexual polymorphism characterized by three flower morphs with reciprocal stigma and anther heights controlled by two epistatically interacting diallelic loci (S and M), hypothesized to be supergenes. Chromosome-level genome assemblies of Eichhornia paniculata identified the S- and M-loci. The S-locus is a supergene consisting of two divergent alleles: The S-allele (2.51 Mb), with three S-allele specific genes hemizygous in most S-morph plants and the s-allele (596 kb) with five s-allele specific genes. Two of the S-allele specific genes, LAZY1-S and HRGP-S, were specifically expressed in styles and stamens, respectively, making them tristyly candidate genes. The M-locus contains one gene (LAZY1-M) present in the M-allele but absent from the m-allele and which is homologous to LAZY1-S. Estimates of allele age are consistent with theory predicting that the S-locus evolved before the M-locus. Re-use of the same gene family highlights the potential role of gene duplication in the evolution of epistatic multilocus polymorphisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→