MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113506612 · doi:10.1101/gr.165522.113

Evolution at two levels of gene expression in yeast

2013· article· en· W2113506612 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carlo G. Artieri, Hunter B. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsGeneTranslational regulationRegulation of gene expressionSaccharomyces cerevisiaeTranslation (biology)Gene expressionEvolutionary biologyCoding regionCodon usage biasRegulatory sequenceComputational biologyMessenger RNAGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the greater functional importance of protein levels, our knowledge of gene expression evolution is based almost entirely on studies of mRNA levels. In contrast, our understanding of how translational regulation evolves has lagged far behind. Here we have applied ribosome profiling--which measures both global mRNA levels and their translation rates--to two species of Saccharomyces yeast and their interspecific hybrid in order to assess the relative contributions of changes in mRNA abundance and translation to regulatory evolution. We report that both cis- and trans-acting regulatory divergence in translation are abundant, affecting at least 35% of genes. The majority of translational divergence acts to buffer changes in mRNA abundance, suggesting a widespread role for stabilizing selection acting across regulatory levels. Nevertheless, we observe evidence of lineage-specific selection acting on several yeast functional modules, including instances of reinforcing selection acting at both levels of regulation. Finally, we also uncover multiple instances of stop-codon readthrough that are conserved between species. Our analysis reveals the underappreciated complexity of post-transcriptional regulatory divergence and indicates that partitioning the search for the locus of selection into the binary categories of "coding" versus "regulatory" may overlook a significant source of selection, acting at multiple regulatory levels along the path from genotype to phenotype.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations161
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207