MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111227266 · doi:10.1093/jhered/92.6.462

Divergent Origins and Concerted Expansion of Two Segmental Duplications on Chromosome 16

2001· article· en· W2111227266 on OpenAlexaff
Evan E. Eichler, Matthew E. Johnson, Can Alkan, Eray Tüzün, Cenk Sahinalp, Doriana Misceo, Nicoletta Archidiacono, Mariano Rocchi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heredity · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsBiologySegmental duplicationGene duplicationLineage (genetic)GenomeGeneticsPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyHuman genomeGenome evolutionGeneMost recent common ancestorSequence (biology)Tandem exon duplicationGene family

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An unexpected finding of the human genome was the large fraction of the genome organized as blocks of interspersed duplicated sequence. We provide a comparative and phylogenetic analysis of a highly duplicated region of 16p12.2, which is composed of at least four different segmental duplications spanning in excess of 160 kb. We contrast the dispersal of two different segmental duplications (LCR16a and LCR16u). LCR16a, a 20 kb low-copy repeat sequence A from chromosome 16, was shown previously to contain a rapidly evolving novel hominoid gene family (morpheus) that had expanded within the last 10 million years of great ape/human evolution. We compare the dispersal of this genomic segment with a second adjacent duplication called LCR16u. The duplication contains a second putative gene family (KIAA0220/SMG1) that is represented approximately eight times within the human genome. A high degree of sequence identity (approximately 98%) was observed among the various copies of LCR16u. Comparative analyses with Old World monkey species show that LCR16a and LCR16u originated from two distinct ancestral loci. Within the human genome, at least 70% of the LCR16u copies were duplicated in concert with the LCR16a duplication. In contrast, only 30% of the chimpanzee loci show an association between LCR16a and LCR16u duplications. The data suggest that the two copies of genomic sequence were brought together during the chimpanzee/human divergence and were subsequently duplicated as a larger cassette specifically within the human lineage. The evolutionary history of these two chromosome-specific duplications supports a model of rapid expansion and evolutionary turnover among the genomes of man and the great apes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HereditySame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207