The evolutionary dynamics of functional modules and the extraordinary plasticity of regulons: the Escherichia coli perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using profiles of phylogenetic profiles (P-cubic) we compared the evolutionary dynamics of different kinds of functional associations. Ordered from most to least evolutionarily stable, these associations were genes in the same operons, genes whose products participate in the same biochemical pathway, genes coding for physically interacting proteins and genes in the same regulons. Regulons showed the most plastic functional interactions with evolutionary stabilities barely better than those of unrelated genes. Further regulon analyses showed that global regulators contain less evolutionarily stable associations than local regulators. Genes co-repressed by global regulators had a higher evolutionary conservation than genes co-activated by global regulators. However, the reverse was true for genes co-repressed and co-activated by local regulators. Of all the regulon-related associations, the relationship between regulators and their target genes showed the most evolutionary stability. Different negative data sets built to contrast against each of the analysed kinds of modules also differed in evolutionary conservation revealing further underlying genome organization. Applying P-cubic analyses to other genomes might help visualize genome organization, understand the evolutionary importance and plasticity of functional associations and compare the quality of data sets expected to reflect functional interactions, such as those coming from high-throughput experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".