MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114910106 · doi:10.1093/nar/30.5.1091

Compilation and analysis of group II intron insertions in bacterial genomes: evidence for retroelement behavior

2002· article· en· W2114910106 on OpenAlexaff
Lixin Dai

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsGroup II intronIntronBiologyGenomeBacterial genome sizeGroup I catalytic intronGeneticsGenBankGeneMinor spliceosomeRNA splicingRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Group II introns are novel genetic elements that have properties of both catalytic RNAs and retroelements. Initially identified in organellar genomes of plants and lower eukaryotes, group II introns are now being discovered in increasing numbers in bacterial genomes. Few of the newly sequenced bacterial introns are correctly identified or annotated by those who sequenced them. Here we have compiled and thoroughly analyzed group II introns and their fragments in bacterial DNA sequences reported to GenBank. Intron distribution in bacterial genomes differs markedly from the distribution in organellar genomes. Bacterial introns are not inserted into conserved genes, are often inserted outside of genes altogether and are frequently fragmented, suggesting a high rate of intron gain and loss. Some introns have multiple natural homing sites while others insert after transcriptional terminators. All bacterial group II introns identified to date encode reverse transcriptase open reading frames and are either active retroelements or derivatives of retroelements. Together, these observations suggest that group II introns in bacteria behave primarily as retroelements rather than as introns, and that the strategy for group II intron survival in bacteria is fundamentally different from intron survival in organelles.

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 score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations186
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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