MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970362251 · doi:10.4161/cib.22919

Evolution of recombination and genome structure in eusocial insects

2013· article· en· W1970362251 on OpenAlexaff
Clement F. Kent, Amro Zayed

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunicative & Integrative Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEusocialityBiologyRecombinationHoney beeGC-contentEvolutionary biologyGene conversionGenomeGenetic diversityYarrowiaMulticellular organismGeneticsHymenopteraYeastGeneZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eusocial Hymenoptera, such as the European honey bee, Apis mellifera, have the highest recombination rates of multicellular animals.(1) Recently, we showed(2) that a side-effect of recombination in the honey bee, GC biased gene conversion (bGC), helps maintain the unusual bimodal GC-content distribution of the bee genome by increasing GC-content in high recombination areas while low recombination areas are losing GC-content because of biased AT mutations and low rates of bGC. Although the very high recombination rate of A. mellifera makes GC-content evolution easier to study, the pattern is consistent with results found in many other species including mammals and yeast.(3) Also consistent across phyla is the association of higher genetic diversity and divergence with high GC and high recombination areas.(4) (,) (5) Finally, we showed that genes overexpressed in the brains of workers cluster in GC-rich genomic areas with the highest rates of recombination and molecular evolution.(2) In this Addendum we present a conceptual model of how eusociality and high recombination rates may co-evolve.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunicative & Integrative BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207