MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417018931 · doi:10.1002/ajb2.70130

Pangenomes as a framework for adaptive radiation, speciation, and adaptation

2025· article· en· W4417018931 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolò Tellini, Ole K. Tørresen, David Edwards, Loren H. Rieseberg, Kjetill S. Jakobsen, José Cerca

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersScience for Life LaboratoryNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Lineage (genetic)Set (abstract data type)Diversification (marketing strategy)Representation (politics)Core (optical fiber)Local adaptation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the genomic basis of diversification is a central goal in evolutionary biology. In recent years, the development and use of pangenomes, a genomic representation of multiple individuals within a lineage (a set of related populations, subspecies, ecotypes, or species), has enabled researchers to differentiate between DNA sequences shared by all individuals of a given lineage (core regions) from those present only in some individuals (accessory or variable regions). Differentiating between core and accessory regions has highlighted a key limitation of relying on a single reference genome: It captures the genetic code of only one individual and this biases genomic analyses and our understanding of diversification. Here, we propose that by identifying genes associated with both core and accessory regions, we can deepen our understanding of the processes underlying diversification. We suggest that analyzing pangenomes and accessory regions will provide deeper insights into diversification, hybridization, and the genetic basis of adaptation and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207