Modern origin of numerous alternatively spliced human introns from tandem arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widespread occurrence of spliceosomal introns in the genomes of higher eukaryotes, their origin remains controversial. One model proposes that the duplication of small genomic portions could have provided the boundaries for new introns. If this mechanism has occurred recently, the 5' and 3' boundaries of each resulting intron should display distinctive sequence similarity. Here, we report that the human genome contains an excess of introns with perfect matching sequences at boundaries. One-third of these introns interrupt the protein-coding sequences of known genes. Introns with the best-matching boundaries are invariably found in tandem arrays of direct repeats. Sequence analysis of the arrays indicates that many intron-breeding repeats have disseminated in several genes at different times during human evolution. A comparison with orthologous regions in mouse and chimpanzee suggests a young age for the human introns with the most-similar boundaries. Finally, we show that these human introns are alternatively spliced with exceptionally high frequency. Our study indicates that genomic duplication has been an important mode of intron gain in mammals. The alternative splicing of transcripts containing these intron-breeding repeats may provide the plasticity required for the rapid evolution of new human proteins.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".