Polymorphisms and evolutionary history of retrotransposon insertions in rice promoters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrotransposons are ubiquitous in higher plant genomes. The presence or absence of retrotransposons in whole genome and high throughput genomic sequence (HTGS) from cultivated and wild rice was investigated to understand the organization and evolution of retrotransposon insertions in promoter regions. Approximately half of the Oryza sativa subsp. japonica 'Nipponbare' promoters with retrotransposons conserved in Oryza sativa subsp. indica '93-11' and four wild rice species showed higher sequence conservation in retrotransposon than nonretrotransposon regions. We further investigated, in detail, the evolutionary dynamics of five retrotransposons in the promoter regions of 95 rice genotypes. Our data suggest that four of five insertions (Rp2-Rp5) occurred in the ancestor of AA genome, while the other insertion (Rp1) predates the ancestral divergence of Oryza officinalis (CC genome). Four retrotransposons (Rp2-Rp5) were present in 52% (Rp2), 29% (Rp3), 53% (Rp4), and 43% (Rp5) of the rice genotypes with AA genome type, and the fifth retrotransposon (Rp1) was present in 95% of the rice genotypes with AA, BBCC, or CC genome types. Furthermore, most of these retrotransposons were found to evolve slower than flanking promoter regions, suggesting a role in promoter function for regulating downstream genes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".