MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097919745 · doi:10.1139/g07-058

5S ribosomal RNA genes in six species of Mediterranean grey mullets: genomic organization and phylogenetic inference

2007· article· en· W2097919745 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ekaterina Gornung, Paolo Colangelo, Flavia Annesi

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistero dell'Università e della Ricerca
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeGeneticsRibosomal DNARibosomal RNAEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a study of the 5S ribosomal RNA genes (5S rDNA) in a group of 6 species belonging to 4 genera of Mugilidae. In these 6 species, the relatively short 5S rDNA repeat units, generated by PCR and ranging in size from 219 to 257 bp, show a high level of intragenomic homogeneity of both coding and spacer regions (NTS-I). Phylogenetic reconstructions based on this data set highlight the greater phylogenetic and genetic diversity of Mugil cephalus and Oedalechilus labeo compared with the genera Liza and Chelon. Comparative sequence analysis revealed significant conservation of the short 5S rDNA repeat units across Chelon and Liza. Moreover, a second size class of 5S rDNA repeat units, ranging from roughly 800 to 1100 bp, was produced in the Liza and Chelon samples. Only short 5S rDNA repeat units were found in M. cephalus and O. labeo. The sequences of the long 5S rDNA repeat units, obtained in Chelon labrosus and Liza ramada, differ owing to the presence of 2 large insertion/deletions (indels) in the spacers (NTS-II) and show considerable sequence identity with NTS-I spacers. Interspecific sequence variation of NTS-II spacers, excluding the indels, is low. Southern-blot hybridization patterns suggest an intermixed arrangement of short and long repeat units within a single chromosome locus.

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 score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207