Variation, Evolution, and Correlation Analysis of C+G Content and Genome or Chromosome Size in Different Kingdoms and Phyla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C+G content (GC content or G+C content) is known to be correlated with genome/chromosome size in bacteria but the relationship for other kingdoms remains unclear. This study analyzed genome size, chromosome size, and base composition in most of the available sequenced genomes in various kingdoms. Genome size tends to increase during evolution in plants and animals, and the same is likely true for bacteria. The genomic C+G contents were found to vary greatly in microorganisms but were quite similar within each animal or plant subkingdom. In animals and plants, the C+G contents are ranked as follows: monocot plants>mammals>non-mammalian animals>dicot plants. The variation in C+G content between chromosomes within species is greater in animals than in plants. The correlation between average chromosome C+G content and chromosome length was found to be positive in Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria (but not in other analyzed bacterial phyla), Ascomycota fungi, and likely also in some plants; negative in some animals, insignificant in two protist phyla, and likely very weak in Archaea. Clearly, correlations between C+G content and chromosome size can be positive, negative, or not significant depending on the kingdoms/groups or species. Different phyla or species exhibit different patterns of correlation between chromosome-size and C+G content. Most chromosomes within a species have a similar pattern of variation in C+G content but outliers are common. The data presented in this study suggest that the C+G content is under genetic control by both trans- and cis- factors and that the correlation between C+G content and chromosome length can be positive, negative, or not significant in different phyla.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".