Enrichment of Triticum aestivum gene annotations using ortholog cliques and gene ontologies in other plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the gargantuan multi-nation effort of sequencing T. aestivum gets close to completion, the annotation process for the vast number of wheat genes and proteins is in its infancy. Previous experimental studies carried out on model plant organisms such as A. thaliana and O. sativa provide a plethora of gene annotations that can be used as potential starting points for wheat gene annotations, proven that solid cross-species gene-to-gene and protein-to-protein correspondences are provided. RESULTS: DNA and protein sequences and corresponding annotations for T. aestivum and 9 other plant species were collected from Ensembl Plants release 22 and curated. Cliques of predicted 1-to-1 orthologs were identified and an annotation enrichment model was defined based on existing gene-GO term associations and phylogenetic relationships among wheat and 9 other plant species. A total of 13 cliques of size 10 were identified, which represent putative functionally equivalent genes and proteins in the 10 plant species. Eighty-five new and more specific GO terms were associated with wheat genes in the 13 cliques of size 10, which represent a 65% increase compared with the previously 130 known GO terms. Similar expression patterns for 4 genes from Arabidopsis, barley, maize and rice in cliques of size 10 provide experimental evidence to support our model. Overall, based on clique size equal or larger than 3, our model enriched the existing gene-GO term associations for 7,838 (8%) wheat genes, of which 2,139 had no previous annotation. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel comparative genomics approach enriches existing T. aestivum gene annotations based on cliques of predicted 1-to-1 orthologs, phylogenetic relationships and existing gene ontologies from 9 other plant species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".