MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114625860 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msk001

Homologs of Mitochondrial Transcription Factor B, Sparsely Distributed Within the Eukaryotic Radiation, Are Likely Derived from the Dimethyladenosine Methyltransferase of the Mitochondrial Endosymbiont

2006· article· en· W2114625860 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy E. Shutt, Michael W. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesGenome AtlanticJoint Genome InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsMitochondrial DNAGenePhylogenetic treeTranscription factorIntronTranscription (linguistics)Phylogenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitochondrial transcription factor B (mtTFB), an essential component in regulating the expression of mitochondrial DNA-encoded genes in both yeast and humans, is a dimethyladenosine methyltransferase (DMT) that has acquired a secondary role in mitochondrial transcription. So far, mtTFB has only been well studied in Opisthokonta (metazoan animals and fungi). Here we investigate the phylogenetic distribution of mtTFB homologs throughout the domain Eucarya, documenting the first examples of this protein outside of the opisthokonts. Surprisingly, we identified putative mtTFB homologs only in amoebozoan protists and trypanosomatids. Phylogenetic analysis together with conservation of intron positions in amoebozoan and human genes supports the grouping of the putative mtTFB homologs as a distinct clade. Phylogenetic analysis further demonstrates that the mtTFB is most likely derived from the DMT of the mitochondrial endosymbiont.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations42
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207