MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067534792 · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-10-329

Polymorphic segmental duplication in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans

2009· article· en· W2067534792 on OpenAlexafffund
Ismael A. Vergara, Allan K. Mah, Jim Huang, Maja Tarailo‐Graovac, Robert Johnsen, David L. Baillie, Nansheng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Genomics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BCUniversity of Washington
KeywordsBiologyGene duplicationCaenorhabditis elegansGenomeSegmental duplicationGeneticsCaenorhabditisGeneGene family

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The nematode Caenorhabditis elegans was the first multicellular organism to have its genome fully sequenced. Over the last 10 years since the original publication in 1998, the C. elegans genome has been scrutinized and the last gaps were filled in November 2002, which present a unique opportunity for examining genome-wide segmental duplications. RESULTS: Here, we performed analysis of the C. elegans genome in search for segmental duplications using a new tool -- OrthoCluster -- we have recently developed. We detected 3,484 duplicated segments -- duplicons -- ranging in size from 234 bp to 108 Kb. The largest pair of duplicons, 108 kb in length located on the left arm of Chromosome V, was further characterized. They are nearly identical at the DNA level (99.7% identity) and each duplicon contains 26 putative protein coding genes. Genotyping of 76 wild-type strains obtained from different labs in the C. elegans community revealed that not all strains contain this duplication. In fact, only 29 strains carry this large segmental duplication, suggesting a very recent duplication event in the C. elegans genome. CONCLUSION: This report represents the first demonstration that the C. elegans laboratory wild-type N2 strains has acquired large-scale differences.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GenomicsSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207