MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057715520 · doi:10.1101/gr.101246.109

Genome-wide evidence for selection acting on single amino acid repeats

2010· article· en· W2057715520 on OpenAlexaff
Wilfried Haerty, G. Brian Golding

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyExonGeneticsAlternative splicingGeneRNA splicingGenomeCoding regionComputational biologyRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low complexity and homopolymer sequences within coding regions are known to evolve rapidly. While their expansion may be deleterious, there is increasing evidence for a functional role associated with these amino acid sequences. Homopolymer sequences are thought to evolve mostly through replication slippage and, therefore, they may be expected to be longer in regions with relaxed selective constraint. Within the coding sequences of eukaryotes, alternatively spliced exons are known to evolve under relaxed constraints in comparison to those exons that are constitutively spliced because they are not included in all of the mature mRNA of a gene. This relaxed exposure to selection leads to faster rates of evolution for alternatively spliced exons in comparison to constitutively spliced exons. Here, we have tested the effect of splicing on the structure (composition, length) of homopolymer sequences in relation to the splicing pattern in which they are found. We observed a significant relationship between alternative splicing and homopolymer sequences with alternatively spliced genes being enriched in number and length of homopolymer sequences. We also observed lower codon diversity and longer homocodons, suggesting a balance between slippage and point mutations linked to the constraints imposed by selection.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations62
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207