Back

Evolutionary replay of duplicate-gene retention across independent whole-genome duplications

Sinha, K.; Ghosh, N.

2026-09-03 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.08.29.748011 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Whole-genome duplications repeatedly expose ancestral gene lineages to the same broad evolutionary outcome-retention or loss of duplicated copies-but it remains unclear whether this history replays similarly across evolutionary scales. We placed duplicate retention in shared hierarchical orthologous-group coordinates and compared percentile ranks defined within each event-wide mapped universe. Three independent angiosperm whole-genome duplications showed reproducible replay (global rank effect T-replay = 0.210, bootstrap 95% confidence interval 0.172-0.248; permutation P = 1/100,001). A plant reference-panel score specified before target outcomes were examined predicted retention after the Apple/Pear duplication ({rho} = 0.169, n = 373). Deep transfer was heterogeneous: the teleost-genome-duplication estimate was positive but unresolved ({rho} = 0.107, n = 151, 95% confidence interval -0.050 to 0.260), whereas transfer to the ancient budding-yeast whole-genome duplication (yeast WGD) was supported ({rho} = 0.280, n = 186). Independently reconstructed animal outcomes also replayed between teleost and Stylommatophora duplications (r = 0.226, n = 146, P = 0.00326), although the effect remained below a prespecified strong-effect threshold. A strict plant-animal comparison was limited to 25 deeply one-to-one lineages and was unresolved (r = 0.033, 95% confidence interval -0.303 to 0.340). Thus, ancestral gene-lineage identity contributes reproducibly to duplicate retention after independent whole-genome duplications, but replay is structured by evolutionary lineage and modified by event-specific history rather than governed by one universal gene-fate ranking.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.