MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116647265 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msj113

Visualizing and Assessing Phylogenetic Congruence of Core Gene Sets: A Case Study of the γ-Proteobacteria

2006· article· en· W2116647265 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Susko, J. Leigh, W. Ford Doolittle, Éric Bapteste

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeBiologyEvolutionary biologyCongruence (geometry)Tree (set theory)Core (optical fiber)Divergence (linguistics)GeneInheritance (genetic algorithm)Set (abstract data type)PhylogeneticsTree of life (biology)GeneticsPhylogenetic networkCombinatoricsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here, we address a much-debated topic: is there or is there not an organismal tree of gamma-proteobacteria that can be unambiguously inferred from a core of shared genes? We apply several recently developed analytical methods to this problem, for the first time. Our heat map analyses of P values and of bootstrap bipartitions show the presence of conflicting phylogenetic signals among these core genes. Our synthesis reconstruction suggests that at least 10% of these genes have been laterally transferred during the divergence of the gamma-proteobacteria, and that for most of the rest, there is too little phylogenetic signal to permit firm conclusions about the mode of inheritance. Although there is clearly a central tendency in this data set (it is far from random), lateral gene transfers cannot be ruled out. Instead of an organismal tree, we propose that these core genes could be used to define a more subtle and partially reticulated pattern of relationships.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations64
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207