Genome-wide variation in the distribution of transposable and repetitive elements in the Western Clawed Frog (Silurana tropicalis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive elements, including tandem repeats and transposable elements (TE), are genetic features of all plant and animal genomes. Despite their abundance and the phylogenetic breadth of host genomes, factors that control the genome-wide distribution of repetitive elements are not well understood. Here we have evaluated the correlation between various genomic predictor variables such as gene expression level, distance from genes, and GC content, with the presence of TEs and non-TE repeats in two kilobase windows of the complete genome sequence of the Western Clawed Frog (<em>Silurana tropicalis</em>). We found that the distributions of different classes of TEs and repeats have distinct correlations with these predictor variables, including a generally strong negative correlation with proximity to exons and GC content. We also found that DNA transposons, but not retrotransposons, are preferentially inserted or preferentially retained near germline-expressed genes. Retrotransposons and simple repeats are found more often in or near conserved regions than expected by chance. These results offer insights into various models that have been proposed to account for heterogeneity in the genomic distribution of repetitive elements, most notably for the “gene disruption model” which posits that TE insertion and repeat presence near or in genes imposes costs to host fitness. In general, multiple lines of evidence suggests that the nature of natural selection on TE and other repetitive element evolution in this frog appears to be similar to that acting on TE and other repetitive elements in the human genome. This is possibly related to the similar size and level of complexity of the genomes of both of these species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".