Characterization of intron loss events in mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exon/intron structure of eukaryotic genes differs extensively across species, but the mechanisms and relative rates of intron loss and gain are still poorly understood. Here, we used whole-genome sequence alignments of human, mouse, rat, and dog to perform a genome-wide analysis of intron loss and gain events in >17,000 mammalian genes. We found no evidence for intron gain and 122 cases of intron loss, most of which occurred within the rodent lineage. The majority (68%) of the deleted introns were extremely small (<150 bp), significantly smaller than average. The intron losses occurred almost exclusively within highly expressed, housekeeping genes, supporting the hypothesis that intron loss is mediated via germline recombination of genomic DNA with intronless cDNA. This study constitutes the largest scale analysis for intron dynamics in vertebrates to date and allows us to confirm and extend several hypotheses previously based on much smaller samples. Our results in mammals show that intron gain has not been a factor in the evolution of gene structure during the past 95 Myr and has likely been restricted to more ancient history.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".