Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent advances in genomics have provided us with better understanding of genomes from many different species, their architectures and evolutionary relationships. Genome architecture (a nonrandom arrangement of functional elements in the genome, such as genes and regulatory regions) is different in eukaryotes than in prokaryotes. Although in prokaryotes, many genes are organised into linearly positioned cotranscribed groups (operons), eukaryotic genomes possess very small number of genes organised into operons. The acquisition of the nuclear membrane, decoupling of transcription and translation and adoption of the ribosome‐scanning mechanism for translation initiation (necessitating monocistronic messenger ribonucleic acids (mRNAs) ) are possible reasons for the loss of operon structure in eukaryotes. Despite the general trend of low level of gene clustering within operon structures in eukaryotes, there is an evidence for nonrandom linear and spatial organisation of eukaryotic genomes, as a result of multiple mechanisms that can lead to the proximity of coexpressed genes. Key Concepts: Albeit not as common as the gene clustering within operons observed in bacteria, linear gene clustering does occur in eukaryotes. In eukaryotes, linear gene clusters form predominantly by partially adaptive, but largely neutral processes, such as genome rearrangements. In natal clusters, genes occupy adjacent positions on chromosomes as a result of a tandem duplication and consequent divergence. In embedded clusters, coding sequence of one gene may be entirely positioned within an intron of another gene, or one gene may have exons that interweave with the exons of other genes. In coregulated clusters, genes could be either linearly clustered on chromosomes to share regulatory sequences, or genes could be spatially colocalised within the nucleus forming transcription factories. Linearly coregulated clusters in eukaryotes include: alternatively spliced transcripts, polycistronic messages, uORFs and genes regulated by bidirectional promoters. Spatial sequestration of genes positioned distantly on the same chromosome or even on different chromosomes can modulate coregulated gene expression.
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) | 0.001 | 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".