Genomes from 117 vertebrate species reveal rapidly evolving segmental duplication landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Segmental duplications are major drivers of evolutionary innovation, yet their dynamics across vertebrates remain poorly understood. Here, we identify segmental duplications from long-read sequenced genomes of 117 vertebrates and the starfish, generating the largest multi-species dataset of its kind. We find that vertebrate genomes show a higher propensity for tandem duplications than for interspersed duplications. However, when focusing only on subtelomeric regions, avian and mammalian genomes show the opposite propensity toward interspersed duplications. We also observe that, across vertebrates, tandem duplications tend to be larger than interspersed duplications. Next, we construct a segmental duplication network for each species, and use network-derived properties to quantify the duplication landscape for that species. Functional enrichment analysis of hyper-duplicated genes reveals a strong enrichment in platypus for pheromone response, driven by the expansion of the vomeronasal pheromone receptor V1R gene family. Overall, our results uncover the general properties of vertebrate segmental duplication, demonstrate the rapid evolution of segmental duplication landscapes, and highlight the utility of network-based approaches for studying genome evolution. Significance Gene and regulatory region duplications are a fundamental source of evolutionary raw material. Here we generate segmental duplication calls from 117 vertebrate species. We find that vertebrate genomes have a bias towards tandem duplications relative to interspersed duplications. However, in the subtelomeric regions, birds and mammals exhibit an opposite bias toward interspersed duplications. Our analysis of segmental duplication networks demonstrate that duplication landscapes evolve rapidly, following species-specific rather than phylogenetic patterns. These findings indicate that the genomic architecture underlying segmental duplications is highly dynamic, uniquely shaping each lineage’s potential to adapt. Our study provides the most comprehensive view of vertebrate segmental duplications to date and establishes a network-based framework for studying genomic structural 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".