Cytogenetic Analysis of the Fish Genus <i>Carassius</i> Indicates Divergence, Fission, and Segmental Duplication as Drivers of Tandem Repeat and Microchromosome Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fishes of the genus Carassius are useful experimental vertebrate models for the study of evolutionary biology and cytogenetics. Carassius demonstrates diverse biological characteristics, such as variation in ploidy levels and chromosome numbers, and presence of microchromosomes. Those Carassius polyploids with ≥150 chromosomes have microchromosomes, but the origin of microchromosomes, especially in European populations, is unknown. We used cytogenetics to study evolution of tandem repeats (U1 and U2 small nuclear DNAs and H3 histone) and microchromosomes in Carassius from the Czech Republic. We tested the hypotheses whether the number of tandem repeats was affected by polyploidization or divergence between species and what mechanism drives evolution of microchromosomes. Tandem repeats were found in tetraploid and hexaploid Carassius gibelio, and tetraploid Carassius auratus and Carassius carassius in conserved numbers, with the exception of U1 small nuclear DNA in C. auratus. This conservation indicates reduction and/or loss in the number of copies per locus in hexaploids and may have occurred by divergence rather than polyploidization. To study the evolution of microchromosomes, we used the whole microchromosome painting probe from hexaploid C. gibelio and hybridized it to tetraploid and hexaploid C. gibelio, and tetraploid C. auratus and C. carassius. Our results revealed variation in the number of microchromosomes in hexaploids and indicated that the evolution of the Carassius karyotype is governed by macrochromosome fissions followed by segmental duplication in pericentromeric areas. These are potential mechanisms responsible for the presence of microchromosomes in Carassius hexaploids. Differential efficacy of one or both of these mechanisms in different tetraploids could ensure variability in chromosome number in polyploids in general.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".