Parallel re-modeling of EF-1α function: divergent EF-1α genes co-occur with EFL genes in diverse distantly related eukaryotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elongation factor-1α (EF-1α) and elongation factor-like (EFL) proteins are functionally homologous to one another, and are core components of the eukaryotic translation machinery. The patchy distribution of the two elongation factor types across global eukaryotic phylogeny is suggestive of a 'differential loss' hypothesis that assumes that EF-1α and EFL were present in the most recent common ancestor of eukaryotes followed by independent differential losses of one of the two factors in the descendant lineages. To date, however, just one diatom and one fungus have been found to have both EF-1α and EFL (dual-EF-containing species). RESULTS: In this study, we characterized 35 new EF-1α/EFL sequences from phylogenetically diverse eukaryotes. In so doing we identified 11 previously unreported dual-EF-containing species from diverse eukaryote groups including the Stramenopiles, Apusomonadida, Goniomonadida, and Fungi. Phylogenetic analyses suggested vertical inheritance of both genes in each of the dual-EF lineages. In the dual-EF-containing species we identified, the EF-1α genes appeared to be highly divergent in sequence and suppressed at the transcriptional level compared to the co-occurring EFL genes. CONCLUSIONS: According to the known EF-1α/EFL distribution, the differential loss process should have occurred independently in diverse eukaryotic lineages, and more dual-EF-containing species remain unidentified. We predict that dual-EF-containing species retain the divergent EF-1α homologues only for a sub-set of the original functions. As the dual-EF-containing species are distantly related to each other, we propose that independent re-modelling of EF-1α function took place in multiple branches in the tree of eukaryotes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".