MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077637320 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.0838

Rates of transposition in <i>Escherichia coli</i>

2013· article· en· W2077637320 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Sousa, Catarina Bourgard, Lindi M. Wahl, Isabel Gordo

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransposition (logic)BiologyTransposable elementEscherichia coliGeneticsMutation AccumulationInsertion sequenceDNA Transposable ElementsMutation rateMutationTransposaseGeneGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolutionary role of transposable elements (TEs) is still highly controversial. Two key parameters, the transposition rate (u and w, for replicative and non-replicative transposition) and the excision rate (e) are fundamental to understanding their evolution and maintenance in populations. We have estimated u, w and e for six families of TEs (including eight members: IS1, IS2, IS3, IS4, IS5, IS30, IS150 and IS186) in Escherichia coli, using a mutation accumulation (MA) experiment. In this experiment, mutations accumulate essentially at the rate at which they appear, during a period of 80 500 (1610 generations × 50 lines) generations, and spontaneous transposition events can be detected. This differs from other experiments in which insertions accumulated under strong selective pressure or over a limited genomic target. We therefore provide new estimates for the spontaneous rates of transposition and excision in E. coli. We observed 25 transposition and three excision events in 50 MA lines, leading to overall rate estimates of u ∼ 1.15 × 10(-5), w ∼ 4 × 10(-8) and e ∼ 1.08 × 10(-6) (per element, per generation). Furthermore, extensive variation between elements was found, consistent with previous knowledge of the mechanisms and regulation of transposition for the different elements.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations71
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207