MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992411282 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v4n1p27

Complete Chloroplast Genome Sequence of Freshwater Araphid Pennate Diatom Alga Synedra acus from Lake Baikal

2011· article· en· W1992411282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuri Galachyants, Alexey A. Morozov, Andrey V. Mardanov, Alexey V. Beletsky, Nikolai V. Ravin, Darya P. Petrova, Yelena V. Likhoshway

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Academy of Sciences
KeywordsGenomeBiologyGeneGeneticsNuclear genePlastidChloroplastDiatomEvolutionary biologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complete chloroplast genome of diatom alga Synedra acus possesses canonical quadripartite structure with two inverted repeats containing ribosomal RNA gene loci that separate small and large single-copy regions. Chloroplast genome maps as a circular molecule of 116 251 bp. It encodes 27 tRNAs, three rRNAs, two small RNA genes, and 128 protein-coding genes. Comparison of the genic features across diatom chloroplast genomes reveals the absence of an overlap between atpD and atpF gene coding sequences that is present in other plastid genomes of diatom origin. This feature is a clear synapomorphy of S. acus plastid genome that is likely a result of either relaxed constraints or extensive selection forces acting upon atpF gene. We also characterized nuclear-encoded acyl-carrier protein gene with chloroplastic targeting in S. acus. The transfer of acpp gene into the nuclear host genome is hypothesized to have occurred independently in several lineages of diatoms.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207