MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1893102016 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511541544.004

Mobile introns and retroelements in bacteria

2005· book-chapter· en· W1893102016 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Zimmerly

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntronGroup II intronBiologyMinor spliceosomeGenomeGeneticsMobile genetic elementsBacterial genome sizeGroup I catalytic intronBacteriaGeneEvolutionary biologyComputational biologyRNARibozymeRNA splicing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introns and retroelements are hallmarks of eukaryotic genomes, but they are also found in bacteria. Here the different types of bacterial introns and retroelements are summarized, including group I introns, group II introns, archaeal bulge-helix-bulge (BHB) introns, intervening sequences (IVSs) in rRNAs, retrons, and diversity generating elements (DGRs). Except for the retroelements, these elements are evolutionarily unrelated, but nevertheless share intriguing properties. The elements all appear mobile within and among bacterial genomes, and in general, do not have clear phenotypic consequence to their host cells. It is possible that introns and retroelements spread from bacteria to eukaryotes as selfish DNAs or were present in the common ancestor of bacteria and eukaryotes. INTRODUCTION Introns and retroelements are typically considered components of eukaryotic genomes, because they were discovered in eukaryotes and are particularly abundant in higher eukaryotes. The human genome, for example, contains roughly 200,000 introns and nearly 3 million retroelements (including SINEs), dwarfing the number of functional genes, which are estimated at 30,000 (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2001). Together, introns and retroelements make up nearly half of the human genome and constitute the major types of “junk DNAs.” In bacteria, the major types of “junk DNAs” are transposons and prophages, which can constitute anywhere from <1% to 7% of a genome (e.g., Glaser et al., 2001). Introns and retroelements are comparatively rare in bacteria, but they have generated substantial interest because of their parallels to eukaryotic introns and retroelements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms→French-language works237,207→