MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118564440 · doi:10.1093/dnares/dsm019

DNA Asymmetric Strand Bias Affects the Amino Acid Composition of Mitochondrial Proteins

2007· article· en· W2118564440 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDNA Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenomeAmino acidGC-contentGeneMitochondrial DNACodon usage biasGeneticsNucleotideDNAMitochondrionBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variations in GC content between genomes have been extensively documented. Genomes with comparable GC contents can, however, still differ in the apportionment of the G and C nucleotides between the two DNA strands. This asymmetric strand bias is known as GC skew. Here, we have investigated the impact of differences in nucleotide skew on the amino acid composition of the encoded proteins. We compared orthologous genes between animal mitochondrial genomes that show large differences in GC and AT skews. Specifically, we compared the mitochondrial genomes of mammals, which are characterized by a negative GC skew and a positive AT skew, to those of flatworms, which show the opposite skews for both GC and AT base pairs. We found that the mammalian proteins are highly enriched in amino acids encoded by CA-rich codons (as predicted by their negative GC and positive AT skews), whereas their flatworm orthologs were enriched in amino acids encoded by GT-rich codons (also as predicted from their skews). We found that these differences in mitochondrial strand asymmetry (measured as GC and AT skews) can have very large, predictable effects on the composition of the encoded proteins.

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.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.278 · 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