MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976407881 · doi:10.1139/g04-077

Genomic organization and evolution of the 5S ribosomal DNA in the ancient fish sturgeon

2005· article· en· W1976407881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francisca Robles, Roberto de la Herrán, Arne Ludwig, C. Ruíz Rejón, M. Ruíz Rejón, Manuel A. Garrido-Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJunta de Andalucía
KeywordsBiologySturgeonEvolutionary biologyRibosomal RNAGeneticsRibosomal DNAGeneCoding regionCladeConcerted evolutionMolecular evolutionPhylogeneticsFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ribosomal DNA in sturgeon is informative when analyzed at the molecular level because it bears unique characteristics that are, to a certain extent, ancestral within vertebrates. In this paper, we examine the structure and the molecular evolution of the 5S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) region in 13 sturgeon species, comparing both the 5S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes and the non-transcribed spacer (NTS) sequences between the coding regions. We have found that different NTS and 5S gene variants are intermixed in the 5S rDNA arrays of the different sturgeon species and that all variants are ancestral, having been maintained over many millions of years. Using predictive models, we have found similar levels of sequence diversity in the coding regions, as well as in the non-coding region, but fixed interspecific differences are underrepresented for 5S genes. However, contrary to the expectations, we have not found fixed differences between NTS sequences when comparing many pairs of species. Specifically, when they belong to the same phylogeographic clade of the four into which the sturgeon is divided, but fixation of mutations and divergence is found between species belonging to different phylogeographic clades. Our results suggest that the evolution of the two parts of the 5S rDNA region cannot be explained exclusively as the outcome of a balance between mutational, homogenizing (i.e., gene conversion as a predominant force in sturgeon), and selective forces. Rather, they suggest that other factors (i.e., hybridization) might be superimposed over those forces and thus could to some extent be masking their effects.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207