The abundance of processed pseudogenes derived from glycolytic genes is correlated with their expression level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The abundance of processed pseudogenes in different vertebrate species is known to be proportional to the length of their oogenesis. However, this hypothesis cannot explain why, in a given species, certain genes produce more processed pseudogenes than others. In particular, one would expect that all genes of the glycolytic pathway would generate roughly the same number of processed pseudogenes. However, some glycolitic genes generate more processed pseudogenes than others. Here, we show that there is a positive correlation between the abundance of processed pseudogene generated from glycolytic genes and their level of expression. The variation in expression level of different glycolytic genes likely reflects the fact that some of them, such a GAPDH, have functions other than those they play in glycolysis. Furthermore, the age distribution of GAPDH-processed pseudogenes corresponds to the age distribution of LINE1 elements, which are the source of the reverse transcriptase that generates processed pseudogenes. These results support the hypothesis that gene expression levels affect the level of processed pseudogene production.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".