Dinoflagellate tandem array gene transcripts are highly conserved and not polycistronic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dinoflagellates are an important component of the marine biota, but a large genome with high-copy number (up to 5,000) tandem gene arrays has made genomic sequencing problematic. More importantly, little is known about the expression and conservation of these unusual gene arrays. We assembled de novo a gene catalog of 74,655 contigs for the dinoflagellate Lingulodinium polyedrum from RNA-Seq (Illumina) reads. The catalog contains 93% of a Lingulodinium EST dataset deposited in GenBank and 94% of the enzymes in 16 primary metabolic KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) pathways, indicating it is a good representation of the transcriptome. Analysis of the catalog shows a marked underrepresentation of DNA-binding proteins and DNA-binding domains compared with other algae. Despite this, we found no evidence to support the proposal of polycistronic transcription, including a marked underrepresentation of sequences corresponding to the intergenic spacers of two tandem array genes. We also have used RNA-Seq to assess the degree of sequence conservation in tandem array genes and found their transcripts to be highly conserved. Interestingly, some of the sequences in the catalog have only bacterial homologs and are potential candidates for horizontal gene transfer. These presumably were transferred as single-copy genes, and because they are now all GC-rich, any derived from AT-rich contexts must have experienced extensive mutation. Our study not only has provided the most complete dinoflagellate gene catalog known to date, it has also exploited RNA-Seq to address fundamental issues in basic transcription mechanisms and sequence conservation in these algae.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".