MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052952514 · doi:10.1186/1759-8753-3-3

Insertion site preference of Mu, Tn5, and Tn7 transposons

2012· article· en· W2052952514 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brian Green, Christiane Bouchier, Cécile Fairhead, Nancy L. Craig, Brendan P. Cormack

Bibliographic record

VenueMobile DNA · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueJohns Hopkins UniversityHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsTransposable elementBiologyGeneticsInsertionGenomeDNATransposon mutagenesisMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transposons, segments of DNA that can mobilize to other locations in a genome, are often used for insertion mutagenesis or to generate priming sites for sequencing of large DNA molecules. For both of these uses, a transposon with minimal insertion bias is desired to allow complete coverage with minimal oversampling. FINDINGS: Three transposons, Mu, Tn5, and Tn7, were used to generate insertions in the same set of fosmids containing Candida glabrata genomic DNA. Tn7 demonstrates markedly less insertion bias than either Mu or Tn5, with both Mu and Tn5 biased toward sequences containing guanosine (G) and cytidine (C). This preference of Mu and Tn5 yields less uniform spacing of insertions than for Tn7, in the adenosine (A) and thymidine (T) rich genome of C. glabrata (39% GC). CONCLUSIONS: In light of its more uniform distribution of insertions, Tn7 should be considered for applications in which insertion bias is deleterious.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations165
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMobile DNASame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207