Comparative Satellitomics in Arowanas (Telostei, Osteoglossiformes) Sheds Light on the Evolution of Ancient Satellite DNAs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant fraction of the genomes of most multicellular eukaryotes includes extensive arrays of tandemly repeated sequences, collectively referred to as satellite DNAs (satDNAs). However, the mechanisms responsible for generating and maintaining varying satDNA abundances across lineages and temporal scales are still unclear. This work focused on arowana fishes (Teleostei, Osteoglossiformes) as a model; their widespread intercontinental distribution and basal phylogenetic position within Teleostei make them a compelling model for evolutionary research, especially in the realm of satDNA molecular evolution. Through the integration of genomic and chromosomal data, we analyzed and compared the catalogs of satDNA families (i.e., satellitomes) of four out of the six extant arowana species, elucidating ancestral evolutionary trends and establishing their temporal history. Arowanas displayed a small number of satDNA families, ranging from 16 to 25 in Osteoglossum bicirrhosum and Scleropages formosus, respectively. Alongside the identification of some shared satDNAs, many considered species-specific, nonetheless possess a limited number of copies in other species. The minimal variation observed both within and across species highlights the long-term conservation of satDNAs during evolution, since specific ones (referred to as long-term conserved satDNAs) may have endured throughout a lengthy evolutionary period. Moreover, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) investigations conducted with the most abundant satDNAs demonstrated unique hybridization patterns for homologous orthologous ones, signifying their dynamic genomic positioning. Besides, the similarities of satDNAs among species align with their phylogenetic relationships, showing the high dynamism of arowanas' satDNAs, with several evolutionary events driving their sequence diversity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".