MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2023774335 · doi:10.1139/g06-048

Analysis of expressed sequence tags from a naked foraminiferan <i>Reticulomyxa filosa</i>

2006· article· en· W2023774335 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fabien Burki, Sergey I. Nikolaev, Ignacio Bolívar, Jackie Guiard, Jan Pawłowski

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsBiologyExpressed sequence tagGenePhylogenetic treeGenomeEvolutionary biologyGeneticsComputational biologyPhylogeneticsSequence databaseTranscriptomeSequence analysisGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foraminifers are a major component of modern marine ecosystems and one of the most important oceanic producers of calcium carbonate. They are a key phylogenetic group among amoeboid protists, but our knowledge of their genome is still mostly limited to a few conserved genes. Here, we report the first study of expressed genes by means of expressed sequence tag (EST) from the freshwater naked foraminiferan Reticulomyxa filosa. Cluster analysis of 1630 valid ESTs enabled the identification of 178 groups of related sequences and 871 singlets. Approximately 50% of the putative unique 1059 ESTs could be annotated using Blast searches against the protein database SwissProt + TrEMBL. The EST database described here is the first step towards gene discovery in Foraminifera and should provide the basis for new insights into the genomic and transcriptomic characteristics of these interesting but poorly understood protists.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome→Same topicMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology→French-language works237,207→