MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014636215 · doi:10.1093/gbe/evp028

Nucleotide Substitution Bias within the Genus Drosophila Affects the Pattern of Proteome Evolution

2009· article· en· W2014636215 on OpenAlexafffund
Mihai Albu, Xiang Jia Min, G. Brian Golding, Dónal A. Hickey

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Biology and Evolution · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyProteomeDrosophila melanogasterGenomeDrosophila (subgenus)GeneticsEvolutionary biologyGenome evolutionNucleotideComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The availability of complete genome sequences for 12 Drosophila species provides an unprecedented resource for large-scale studies of genome evolution. In this study, we looked for correlated shifts in the patterns of genome and proteome evolution within the genus Drosophila. Specifically, we asked if the nucleotide composition of the Drosophila willistoni genome--which is significantly less GC rich than the other 11 sequenced Drosophila genomes--is reflected in an altered pattern of amino acid substitutions in the encoded proteins. Our results show that this is indeed the case: There are large and highly significant asymmetries in the patterns of amino acid substitution between D. willistoni and Drosophila melanogaster, and they are in the direction predicted by the nucleotide biases. The implication of this result, combined with previous studies on long-term proteome evolution, is that substitutional biases at the DNA level can be a major factor in determining both the long-term and the short-term directions of proteome evolution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207