Genome Architecture and Speciation in Plants and Animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been numerous treatments of specific topics in speciation, but surprisingly few papers have compared patterns and processes of speciation across different organismal groups. In this review, we partially address this gap by asking how variation in genome architecture impacts speciation across the plant and animal kingdoms. First, we briefly summarise what is known about speciation in these groups; importantly, the diversification rate of plants is about twice that of animals, and species barriers in plants may arise at an earlier stage of divergence. Next, we discuss several of the major differences in how plant and animal genomes evolve, and how they may impact the evolution of reproductive barriers and potentially speciation rates. Key differences include (1) a higher frequency of whole-genome duplications (WGDs) and more rapid loss of synteny in plants; (2) a higher incidence and greater divergence of sex chromosomes in animals; (3) greater rates of sequence change, but slower rates of structural evolution, in animal relative to plant mitochondrial genomes; and (4) an often higher abundance of transposable elements (TEs) in plant genomes. Overall, we find the genomes of plants diverge much more rapidly in structure than those of animals (although there are many exceptions), perhaps contributing to a more rapid emergence of barriers to gene flow in plants. However, we also found that comparisons of genome evolution between the kingdoms are hampered by inconsistency in the methods employed, as well as in the metrics used to report on rates of structural evolution. Another theme from our review is the huge variation in genome architecture within each kingdom. While this variation complicates broad generalisations, it enables powerful comparative analyses that link differences in genome architecture to patterns and processes of speciation.
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".