MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116841265 · doi:10.64898/2025.12.21.695719

Rapid evolution of synteny associated with multiple origins of dioecy and XY sex determination

2025· article· W7116841265 on OpenAlexaff
Mark S. Hibbins, Cassandre Pyne, Mykhailo Sukmaniuk, Emily Glasgow, Meng Yuan, Yunchen Gong, Spencer C. H. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyntenyPhylogenetic treeCladePhylogeneticsGenomeChromosomeGenomic informationAdaptive evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chromosomal rearrangements are a major driver of evolutionary innovation, shaping processes including local adaptation, speciation, and sex chromosome evolution. Multispecies synteny datasets are rich in information on the drivers of genomic rearrangement, but statistical approaches that enable insights to be obtained from this information are still in their infancy. Here, we present a novel framework for the application of phylogenetic comparative methods to multispecies synteny datasets. We apply this approach to Rumex , a clade of flowering plants that exhibits rapid karyotypic evolution, including multiple origins of XY sex determination from hermaphroditic ancestors. Leveraging new genome assemblies, we find evidence for accelerated syntenic evolution associated with evolutionary transitions to dioecy, highlighting how explicit phylogenetic hypothesis testing can generate new insights into adaptive hypotheses for rearrangements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities→French-language works237,207→