Transcriptomic prey-capture responses in convergently evolved carnivorous pitcher plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Australian pitcher plant Cephalotus and the Asian pitcher plant Nepenthes exhibit striking morphological and functional similarities, serving as compelling examples of convergent evolution. Although trapping pitchers in both lineages represent some of the most elaborate leaf structures in angiosperms, it remains unknown whether their analogous phenotypes share common molecular foundations, especially at the level of gene expression. Here, we conducted tissue-specific RNA-seq experiments coupled with feeding treatments in C. follicularis , mirroring the available expression dataset of N. gracilis to analyze gene expression evolution underlying the phenotypic convergence. Functionally equivalent tissues in the two species tended to express similar gene sets, with common transcriptional responses that activate amino acid metabolism and protein synthesis upon the feeding treatment, yet with distinct transcriptional regulation of digestive enzyme genes. Additionally, we found multiple cases of combined convergence in expression and protein sequences in genes preferentially expressed in gland-containing tissues. Our study showcases how common and unique transcriptional components are integrated to shape the independent emergence of complex leaf structures in angiosperms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".