MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034206612 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2008.0054

Gene Family Evolution by Duplication, Speciation, and Loss

2008· article· en· W2034206612 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of MontréalUniversité de MontréalSimon Fraser UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsGene duplicationGenetic algorithmGene familyBiologyTree rearrangementGeneHeuristicTree (set theory)Evolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsComputational biologyGeneticsComputer scienceMathematicsGenomeCombinatoricsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider two algorithmic questions related to the evolution of gene families. First, given a gene tree for a gene family, can the evolutionary history of this family be explained with only speciation and duplication events? Such gene trees are called DS-trees. We show that this question can be answered in linear time, and that a DS-tree induces a single species tree. We then study a natural extension of this problem: what is the minimum number of gene losses involved in an evolutionary history leading to an observed gene tree or set of gene trees? Based on our characterization of DS-trees, we propose a heuristic for this problem, and evaluate it on a dataset of plants gene families and on simulated data.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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