CHROMOSOMES AS INTERDEPENDENT ACCOUNTING UNITS: THE ASSIGNED ORIENTATION OF<i>C. ELEGANS</i>CHROMOSOMES MINIMIZES THE TOTAL W-BASE CHARGAFF DIFFERENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNAs of individual chromosomes violate, albeit perhaps by only one in a thousand bases, Chargaff's second parity rule, which is that Chargaff's first parity rule for duplex DNA (A = T, G = C) applies, to a close approximation, to single stranded DNA. If the "top" strand of one chromosome has A > T and the "top" strand of another has T > A, can they complement to approach even parity (A = T)? Assignment of orientation to the six chromosomes of Caenorhabditis elegans is said to have been arbitrary and, of 26(= 64) possible combinations of top (T) and bottom (B) strands, the GenBank orientation (designated "TTTTTT") is but one. Yet, for the W bases (A and T) the chromosomes in the GenBank orientation complement to reduce the Chargaff difference (A–T) to only 200 bases (i.e. only one in 323,658 bases does not have a potential Watson-Crick pairing partner). This suggests that the assignment was not arbitrary. However, the GenBank orientation for the S bases (G and C) allows an approach to even parity less well than many other orientations, the best of which is BBBBTT (indicating a disparity between the GenBank orientations of the first four autosomes and those of chromosomes V and X). Although only the euchromatic regions of Drosophila melanogaster chromosomes have been sequenced, there are orientations that allow an approach to even parity. We conclude that, with respect to their Chargaff differences, the chromosomes of C. elegans have the potential to engage in interdependent base accounting. Since this might also apply to D. melanogaster, even when heterochromatin-associated DNA rich in tandem repeats (microsatellite DNA) is excluded, then heterochromatic DNA might not normally participate in the hypothetical accounting process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".