Distinct patterns of genome size evolution in each bryophyte lineage are not correlated with whole genome duplication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Genome size varies by orders of magnitude across land plants, and the factors driving evolutionary increases and decreases in genome size vary across lineages. Bryophytes have the smallest genomes relative to other land plants, and there is growing evidence for frequent whole genome duplication (WGD) across the lineage. However, the broad patterns of genome size, chromosome number and WGD have yet to be characterized across bryophytes in a phylogenetic context. METHODS: In the present study, we adopt a phylogenetic comparative approach and leverage previously published data on genome size, chromosome number and WGD to reconstruct the evolutionary history of these traits across the three major bryophyte lineages: hornworts, liverworts and mosses. We infer ancestral haploid chromosome numbers for each lineage and introduce a novel metric for assessing polyploidy using chromosome counts. KEY RESULTS: Each lineage of bryophytes exhibits a distinct pattern of genome size evolution and prevalence of WGD, with mosses having the most dynamic genome sizes and highest propensity for WGD. We found that 21.3 % of mosses and 13 % of liverworts species have naturally occurring polyploids. In addition, haploid genome size (1C) is most dynamic in the mosses, which includes at least 15 transitions to larger genomes and nine reversals, largely in the orders Dicranales and Hypnales. CONCLUSIONS: There is no correlation between genome size and WGD or between genome size and chromosome number, potentially suggesting rapid genome downsizing following WGD. Given that bryophytes are poikilohydric (desiccation-tolerant) plants, having large genomes might be physiologically prohibitive given the cost to growth and metabolism associated with them. These findings emphasize the unique evolution of the bryophytes broadly and of the hornworts, liverworts and mosses individually, and should therefore serve as impetus for more in-depth experimental studies of genome size evolution and WGD in bryophytes.
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".