Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomes and genes diversify during evolution; however, it is unclear to what extent genes still retain the relationship among species. Model species for molecular phylogenetic studies include yeasts and viruses whose genomes were sequenced as well as plants that have the fossil-supported true phylogenetic trees available. In this study, we generated single gene trees of seven yeast species as well as single gene trees of nine baculovirus species using all the orthologous genes among the species compared. Homologous genes among seven known plants were used for validation of the finding. Four algorithms-maximum parsimony (MP), minimum evolution (ME), maximum likelihood (ML), and neighbor-joining (NJ)-were used. Trees were reconstructed before and after weighting the DNA and protein sequence lengths among genes. Rarely a gene can always generate the "true tree" by all the four algorithms. However, the most frequent gene tree, termed "maximum gene-support tree" (MGS tree, or WMGS tree for the weighted one), in yeasts, baculoviruses, or plants was consistently found to be the "true tree" among the species. The results provide insights into the overall degree of divergence of orthologous genes of the genomes analyzed and suggest the following: 1) The true tree relationship among the species studied is still maintained by the largest group of orthologous genes; 2) There are usually more orthologous genes with higher similarities between genetically closer species than between genetically more distant ones; and 3) The maximum gene-support tree reflects the phylogenetic relationship among species in comparison.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".