MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072483773 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2009.0088

Computation of Perfect DCJ Rearrangement Scenarios with Linear and Circular Chromosomes

2009· article· en· W2072483773 on OpenAlexaff
Sèverine Bérard, Annie Château, Cédric Chauve, Christophe Paul, Éric Tannier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenome Rearrangement Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsComputationComputer scienceMathematicsBiologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the problem of transforming a multichromosomal genome into another using Double Cut-and-Join (DCJ) operations, which simulates several types of rearrangements, as reversals, translocations, and block-interchanges. We introduce the notion of a DCJ scenario that does not break families of common intervals (groups of genes co-localized in both genomes). Such scenarios are called perfect, and their properties are well known when the only considered rearrangements are reversals. We show that computing the minimum perfect DCJ rearrangement scenario is NP-hard, and describe an exact algorithm which exponential running time is bounded in terms of a specific pattern used in the NP-completeness proof. The study of perfect DCJ rearrangement leads to some surprising properties. The DCJ model has often yielded algorithmic problems which complexities are comparable to the reversal-only model. In the perfect rearrangement framework, however, while perfect sorting by reversals is NP-hard if the family of common intervals to be preserved is nested, we show that finding a shortest perfect DCJ scenario can be answered in polynomial time in this case. Conversely, while perfect sorting by reversals is tractable when the family of common intervals is weakly separable, we show that the corresponding problem is still NP-hard in the DCJ case. This shows that despite the similarity of the two operations, easy patterns for reversals are hard ones for DCJ, and vice versa.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicGenome Rearrangement AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207