MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Searching for evidence of selection in avian DNA barcodes

2011· article· en· W1509397261 on OpenAlex
Kevin C. R. Kerr

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology Resources · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsBiologyMitochondrial DNAEvolutionary biologyIntraspecific competitionDNA barcodingGenomeGeneticsPhylogeneticsPhylogenetic treeHuman evolutionary geneticsGeneZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The barcode of life project has assembled a tremendous number of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) sequences. Although these sequences were gathered to develop a DNA-based system for species identification, it has been suggested that further biological inferences may also be derived from this wealth of data. Recurrent selective sweeps have been invoked as an evolutionary mechanism to explain limited intraspecific COI diversity, particularly in birds, but this hypothesis has not been formally tested. In this study, I collated COI sequences from previous barcoding studies on birds and tested them for evidence of selection. Using this expanded data set, I re-examined the relationships between intraspecific diversity and interspecific divergence and sampling effort, respectively. I employed the McDonald-Kreitman test to test for neutrality in sequence evolution between closely related pairs of species. Because amino acid sequences were generally constrained between closely related pairs, I also included broader intra-order comparisons to quantify patterns of protein variation in avian COI sequences. Lastly, using 22 published whole mitochondrial genomes, I compared the evolutionary rate of COI against the other 12 protein-coding mitochondrial genes to assess intragenomic variability. I found no conclusive evidence of selective sweeps. Most evidence pointed to an overall trend of strong purifying selection and functional constraint. The COI protein did vary across the class Aves, but to a very limited extent. COI was the least variable gene in the mitochondrial genome, suggesting that other genes might be more informative for probing factors constraining mitochondrial variation within 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.257 · 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