Evidence of a Large Novel Gene Pool Associated with Prokaryotic Genomic Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbial genes that are "novel" (no detectable homologs in other species) have become of increasing interest as environmental sampling suggests that there are many more such novel genes in yet-to-be-cultured microorganisms. By analyzing known microbial genomic islands and prophages, we developed criteria for systematic identification of putative genomic islands (clusters of genes of probable horizontal origin in a prokaryotic genome) in 63 prokaryotic genomes, and then characterized the distribution of novel genes and other features. All but a few of the genomes examined contained significantly higher proportions of novel genes in their predicted genomic islands compared with the rest of their genome (Paired t test = 4.43E-14 to 1.27E-18, depending on method). Moreover, the reverse observation (i.e., higher proportions of novel genes outside of islands) never reached statistical significance in any organism examined. We show that this higher proportion of novel genes in predicted genomic islands is not due to less accurate gene prediction in genomic island regions, but likely reflects a genuine increase in novel genes in these regions for both bacteria and archaea. This represents the first comprehensive analysis of novel genes in prokaryotic genomic islands and provides clues regarding the origin of novel genes. Our collective results imply that there are different gene pools associated with recently horizontally transmitted genomic regions versus regions that are primarily vertically inherited. Moreover, there are more novel genes within the gene pool associated with genomic islands. Since genomic islands are frequently associated with a particular microbial adaptation, such as antibiotic resistance, pathogen virulence, or metal resistance, this suggests that microbes may have access to a larger "arsenal" of novel genes for adaptation than previously thought.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".