Multiple genome rearrangement: a general approach via the evolutionary genome graph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: In spite of a well-known fact that genome rearrangements are supposed to be viewed in the light of the evolutionary relationships within and between the species involved, no formal underlying framework based on the evolutionary considerations for treating the questions arising in the area has been proposed. If such an underlying framework is provided, all the basic questions in the area can be posed in a biologically more appropriate and useful form: e.g., the similarity between two genomes can then be computed via the nearest ancestor, rather than 'directly', ignoring the evolutionary connections. RESULTS: We outline an evolution-based general framework for answering questions related to the multiple genome rearrangement. In the proposed model, the evolutionary genome graph (EG-graph) encapsulates an evolutionary history of a genome family. For a set of all EG-graphs, we introduce a family of similarity measures, each defined via a fixed set of genome transformations. Given a set of genomes and restricting ourselves to the transpositions, an algorithm for constructing an EG-graph is presented. We also present the experimental results in the form of an EG-graph for a set of concrete genomes (for several species). This EG-graph turns out to be very close to the corresponding known phylogenetic tree.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".