TRANSMISSION // 2026.10.28.762560v1 AI ADAPTED
Tomato gene duplicates often retain ancestral expression patterns
A bioRxiv preprint compares duplicated tomato genes across 23 tissues, finding frequent retention of inferred ancestral expression and enrichment of fruit-quality functions among genes that gained fruit expression.

A study of cultivated tomato suggests that many genes duplicated in an ancient genome triplication retained where their ancestors were active, rather than dividing that activity among their descendants.
What the study found
Ranaweera and colleagues compared expression patterns across 23 tissues for paralogs—related genes produced by duplication—derived from the most recent genome triplication specific to the nightshade family. They also used phylogenetic analyses to infer ancestral expression states.
In their bioRxiv preprint, the authors report that roughly 66% of duplicates tended to retain ancestral expression states. About 6% of gene lineages experienced expression gains and about 20% experienced expression losses. The authors also found that expression divergence was often asymmetrical among duplicates, particularly when ancestral genes were inferred to be either unexpressed or highly expressed.
Genes that gained expression in fruit tissues were significantly enriched for functions associated with fruit quality, the authors report.
Why it matters
Gene duplication can provide material for the evolution of new expression patterns and potentially new functions. The reported prevalence of ancestral-state retention offers a contrast to the traditional emphasis on partitioning ancestral expression among duplicates. Combining tissue-expression comparisons with evolutionary analysis gives researchers a way to reconstruct possible histories of gene activity across tissues.
Limits and unknowns
The ancestral states are inferred, not directly observed, and the fruit-quality association does not establish that expression gains changed fruit traits. The abstract does not specify the expression-measurement methods, sample sizes, statistical thresholds or individual fruit-quality functions involved. It also does not explain how the reported percentage categories relate to one another. The work is a preprint, and these details cannot be assessed from the abstract alone.
- cultivated tomato
- gene duplication
- genome triplication
- gene expression
- fruit quality
- phylogenetics