MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017521503 · doi:10.1073/pnas.011578598

Evolution of IESs and scrambling in the actin I gene in hypotrichous ciliates

2001· article· en· W2017521503 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel J. Hogan, Elizabeth A. Hewitt, Kindra E. Orr, David M. Prescott, Kirsten M. Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCancer Center, University of ColoradoUniversity of WaterlooNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeneScramblingBiologyGenomeActinGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Germ-line (micronuclear) genes in hypotrichous ciliates are interrupted by numerous, short, noncoding, AT-rich segments called internal eliminated segments, or IESs. IESs divide a gene into macronuclear destined segments, or MDSs. IESs are excised from micronuclear genes, and the MDSs are spliced when a micronuclear genome is processed into a macronuclear genome after cell mating. In the micronuclear version of the actin I gene intramolecular recombination between IESs during evolution has put MDSs into a scrambled disorder in some but not all hypotrichs. Studies using rDNA sequences to define phylogenetic relationships among eight hypotrichs suggests that evolution of the micronuclear actin I gene proceeds by successive addition of IESs in earlier diverging species, without MDS scrambling. Continued addition of IESs and recombination among IESs in later diverging species produced actin I genes with scrambled MDSs. Subsequent to MDS scrambling, additional IESs were inserted into the more recently evolved species. Thus, IES insertions and gene scrambling occur in a progressive manner during species evolution to produce micronuclear actin I genes of increasing structural complexity.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations29
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207