MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090415636 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000045

The Genome Sequence of Caenorhabditis briggsae: A Platform for Comparative Genomics

2003· article· en· W2090415636 on OpenAlexaff
Lincoln Stein, Zhirong Bao, Darin Blasiar, Thomas Blumenthal, Michael R. Brent, Nansheng Chen, Asif Chinwalla, Laura Clarke, Chris M. Clee, Avril Coghlan, Alan Coulson, Peter D’Eustachio, David Fitch, Lucinda A. Fulton, Robert E. Fulton, Sam Griffiths‐Jones, Todd Harris, LaDeana Hillier, Ravi S. Kamath, Patricia E. Kuwabara, Elaine R. Mardis, Marco A. Marra, Tracie L. Miner, Patrick Minx, James C. Mullikin, R. W. Plumb, Jane Rogers, Jacqueline E. Schein, Marc Sohrmann, John Spieth, Jason Stajich, Chaochun Wei, David L. Willey, Richard K. Wilson, Richard Durbin, R Waterston

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMedical Research CouncilNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthScience Foundation IrelandWellcome Trust
KeywordsBiologyCaenorhabditisGenomeCaenorhabditis elegansGeneticsComparative genomicsGeneGenomicsEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The soil nematodes Caenorhabditis briggsae and Caenorhabditis elegans diverged from a common ancestor roughly 100 million years ago and yet are almost indistinguishable by eye. They have the same chromosome number and genome sizes, and they occupy the same ecological niche. To explore the basis for this striking conservation of structure and function, we have sequenced the C. briggsae genome to a high-quality draft stage and compared it to the finished C. elegans sequence. We predict approximately 19,500 protein-coding genes in the C. briggsae genome, roughly the same as in C. elegans. Of these, 12,200 have clear C. elegans orthologs, a further 6,500 have one or more clearly detectable C. elegans homologs, and approximately 800 C. briggsae genes have no detectable matches in C. elegans. Almost all of the noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) known are shared between the two species. The two genomes exhibit extensive colinearity, and the rate of divergence appears to be higher in the chromosomal arms than in the centers. Operons, a distinctive feature of C. elegans, are highly conserved in C. briggsae, with the arrangement of genes being preserved in 96% of cases. The difference in size between the C. briggsae (estimated at approximately 104 Mbp) and C. elegans (100.3 Mbp) genomes is almost entirely due to repetitive sequence, which accounts for 22.4% of the C. briggsae genome in contrast to 16.5% of the C. elegans genome. Few, if any, repeat families are shared, suggesting that most were acquired after the two species diverged or are undergoing rapid evolution. Coclustering the C. elegans and C. briggsae proteins reveals 2,169 protein families of two or more members. Most of these are shared between the two species, but some appear to be expanding or contracting, and there seem to be as many as several hundred novel C. briggsae gene families. The C. briggsae draft sequence will greatly improve the annotation of the C. elegans genome. Based on similarity to C. briggsae, we found strong evidence for 1,300 new C. elegans genes. In addition, comparisons of the two genomes will help to understand the evolutionary forces that mold nematode genomes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations960
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207