A phylogenetic perspective of chromosome evolution in Formicidae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromosomes, as carriers of genes, are the fundamental units of heredity, with the eukaryotic genome divided into multiple chromosomes. Each species typically has a consistent number of chromosomes within its lineage. Ants, however, display remarkable diversity in chromosome numbers, and previous studies have shown that this variation may correlate with ant diversity. As ants evolved, various karyotypes emerged, primarily through chromosomal fissions, leading to an increase in chromosome number and a decrease in chromosome size. In this study, we investigate chromosome evolution in ants from a phylogenetic perspective using ancestral reconstruction. Our analysis indicates that the most recent common ancestor of ants had an ancestral haploid chromosome number of 11, likely composed of biarmed chromosomes. The bimodal distribution of karyotypes and the trend toward increased chromosome numbers align with previous assumptions. However, both dysploidy and ploidy changes have been indicated as likely mechanisms of chromosome number evolution. Descending dysploidy occurs consistently throughout the phylogeny, while changes in ploidy are believed to occur occasionally within the subfamilies during genus diversification. We propose, based on our results and previous evidence (e.g., genome size in ants), that both fusions and fissions contribute equally to karyotype changes in Formicidae. Additionally, changes in ploidy should not be fully ignored, as they can occur across specific lineages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".