MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE EVOLUTION OF GENOMIC BASE COMPOSITION IN BACTERIA

2003· article· en· W2104657582 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Haywood-Farmer, Sarah P. Otto

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyComposition (language)Evolutionary biologyBase (topology)BacteriaGeneticsComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guanine plus cytosine (GC) content ranges broadly among bacterial genomes. In this study, we explore the use of a Brownian-motion model for the evolution of GC content over time. This model assumes that GC content varies over time in a continuous and homogeneous manner. Using this model and a maximum-likelihood approach, we analyzed the evolution of GC content across several bacterial phylogenies. Using three independent tests, we found that the observed divergence in GC content was consistent with a homogeneous Brownian-motion model. For example, similar rates of GC content evolution were inferred in several different bacterial subclades, indicating that there is relatively little rate heterogeneity in GC content evolution over broad evolutionary time scales. We thus argue that the homogeneous Brownian-motion model provides a good working model for GC content evolution. We then use this model to determine the overall rate of GC content evolution among eubacteria. We also determine the time frame over which GC content remains similar in related taxa, using a flexible definition for "similarity" in GC content so that, depending on the context, more or less stringent criteria may be applied. Our results have implications for models of sequence evolution, including those used for phylogenetic reconstruction and for inferring unusual changes in GC content.

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 score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

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 head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207