HAPLODIPLOIDY ACCELERATES MITOGENOME EVOLUTION IN INSECTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rates of mitogenome evolution differ among animal lineages, variation which has been linked to life history, ecological traits, and potentially to breeding system. Insects are a good model for examining the latter impacts as, although most are diplodiploids (DD), some lineages reproduce by haplodiploidy (HD) or thelytoky. In this study, we ask if breeding system influences patterns of evolution in the mitogenome using the 658 bp barcode region of the cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene as a sentinel. Specifically, we ask if the incidence of amino acid substitutions and indels is linked to breeding system. We investigated this matter by examining COI sequences from specimens assigned to 1332 BINs, a species proxy. Belonging to 513 families and 26 orders, these BINs included representatives of roughly half of all insect families. Most are DD, but ten lineages, varying in rank from tribe to order, are HD. Our analysis reveals that HD lineages show higher rates of amino acid substitution than DD. In addition, indels are frequent in HD lineages but are absent in DD taxa with one exception. Among DD, the Strepsiptera is an outlier; its COI shows very rapid amino acid evolution and frequent indels. The accelerated rates of mitogenome evolution in HD lineages suggest that this breeding system facilitates coevolution between the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".