Ancestral Genome Organization: An Alignment Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a comparative genomics approach for inferring ancestral genome organization and evolutionary scenarios, based on present-day genomes represented as ordered gene sequences with duplicates. We develop our methodology for a model of evolution restricted to duplication and loss, and then show how to extend it to other content-modifying operations, and to inversions. From a combinatorial point of view, the main consequence of ignoring rearrangements is the possibility of formulating the problem as an alignment problem. On the other hand, duplications and losses are asymmetric operations that are applicable to one of the two aligned sequences. Consequently, an ancestral genome can directly be inferred from a duplication-loss scenario attached to a given alignment. Although alignments are a priori simpler to handle than rearrangements, we show that a direct approach based on dynamic programming leads, at best, to an efficient heuristic. We present an exact pseudo-boolean linear programming algorithm to search for the optimal alignment along with an optimal scenario of duplications and losses. Although exponential in the worst case, we show low running times on real datasets as well as synthetic data. We apply our algorithm (*) in a phylogenetic context to the evolution of stable RNA (tRNA and rRNA) gene content and organization in Bacillus genomes. Our results lead to various biological insights, such as rates of ribosomal RNA proliferation among lineages, their role in altering tRNA gene content, and evidence of tRNA class conversion.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".