Proteomic Detection of Non-Annotated Protein-Coding Genes in Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf0-1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome sequences are annotated by computational prediction of coding sequences, followed by similarity searches such as BLAST, which provide a layer of possible functional information. While the existence of processes such as alternative splicing complicates matters for eukaryote genomes, the view of bacterial genomes as a linear series of closely spaced genes leads to the assumption that computational annotations that predict such arrangements completely describe the coding capacity of bacterial genomes. We undertook a proteomic study to identify proteins expressed by Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf0-1 from genes that were not predicted during the genome annotation. Mapping peptides to the Pf0-1 genome sequence identified sixteen non-annotated protein-coding regions, of which nine were antisense to predicted genes, six were intergenic, and one read in the same direction as an annotated gene but in a different frame. The expression of all but one of the newly discovered genes was verified by RT-PCR. Few clues as to the function of the new genes were gleaned from informatic analyses, but potential orthologs in other Pseudomonas genomes were identified for eight of the new genes. The 16 newly identified genes improve the quality of the Pf0-1 genome annotation, and the detection of antisense protein-coding genes indicates the under-appreciated complexity of bacterial genome organization.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".