Exon-based phylogenomics and the relationships of African cichlids: Tackling the challenges of reconstructing phylogenies with repeated rapid radiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
African cichlids (subfamily: Pseudocrenilabrinae) are among the most diverse vertebrates, and their propensity for repeated rapid radiation has made them a celebrated model system in evolutionary research. Nonetheless, despite numerous studies, phylogenetic uncertainty persists, and riverine lineages remain comparatively underrepresented in higher-level phylogenetic studies. Heterogeneous gene histories resulting from incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) and hybridization are likely sources of uncertainty, especially during episodes of rapid speciation. We investigate relationships of Pseudocrenilabrinae and its close relatives while accounting for multiple sources of genetic discordance using species tree and hybrid network analyses with hundreds of single-copy exons. We improve sequence recovery for distant relatives, thereby extending the taxonomic reach of our probes, with a hybrid reference guided/de novo assembly approach. Our analyses provide robust hypotheses for most higher-level relationships and reveal widespread gene heterogeneity, including in riverine taxa. ILS and past hybridization are identified as sources of genetic discordance in different lineages. Sampling of various Blenniiformes (formerly Ovalentaria) adds strong phylogenomic support for convict blennies (Pholidichthyidae) as sister to Cichlidae, and points to other potentially useful protein-coding markers across the order. A reliable phylogeny with representatives from diverse environments will support ongoing taxonomic and comparative evolutionary research in the cichlid model system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".