MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015673931 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msg193

Sex-Linked Mammalian Sperm Proteins Evolve Faster Than Autosomal Ones

2003· article· en· W2015673931 on OpenAlexaff
Dara G. Torgerson

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonsynonymous substitutionBiologyAutosomeGeneticsSpermX chromosomeGeneMutation rateMutationChromosomeY chromosomeAlleleGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

X-linked genes can evolve slower or faster depending on whether most recessive, or at least partially recessive alleles are deleterious or beneficial due to their hemizygous expression in males. Molecular studies of X chromosome divergence have provided conflicting evidence for both a higher and lower rate of nucleotide substitution at both synonymous and nonsynonymous sites, depending on the nucleotide sites sampled. Using human and mouse orthologous genes, we tested the hypothesis that genes encoding male-specific sperm proteins are evolving faster on the X chromosome compared with autosomes. X-linked sperm proteins have an average nonsynonymous mutation rate almost twice as high as sperm genes found on autosomes, unlike other tissue-specific genes, where no significant difference in the nonsynonymous mutation rate between the X chromosome and autosomes was found. However, no difference was found in the average synonymous mutation rate of X-linked versus autosomal sperm proteins, which along with corresponding higher values of Ka/Ks in X-linked sperm proteins suggest that differences in selective forces and not mutation rates are the underlying cause of higher X-linked mammalian sperm protein divergence.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations88
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207