Phylogenetic Signal in Primate Tooth Enamel Proteins and its Relevance for Paleoproteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ancient tooth enamel, and to some extent dentin and bone, contain characteristic peptides that persist for long periods of time. In particular, peptides from the enamel proteome (enamelome) have been used to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of fossil taxa. However, the enamelome is based on only about 10 genes, whose protein products undergo fragmentation in vivo and post mortem. This raises the question as to whether the enamelome alone provides enough information for reliable phylogenetic inference. We address these considerations on a selection of enamel-associated proteins that has been computationally predicted from genomic data from 232 primate species. We created multiple sequence alignments for each protein and estimated the evolutionary rate for each site. We examined which sites overlap with the parts of the protein sequences that are typically isolated from fossils. Based on this, we simulated ancient data with different degrees of sequence fragmentation, followed by phylogenetic analysis. We compared these trees to a reference species tree. Up to a degree of fragmentation that is similar to that of fossil samples from 1 to 2 million years ago, the phylogenetic placements of most nodes at family level are consistent with the reference species tree. We tested phylogenetic analysis on combinations of different enamel proteins and found that the composition of the proteome can influence deep splits in the phylogeny. With our methods, we provide guidance for researchers on how to evaluate the potential of paleoproteomics for phylogenetic studies before sampling valuable ancient specimens.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".