MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2118918006 · doi:10.1139/g03-145

The 18S rRNA from <i>Odontophrynus americanus</i> 2<i>n</i> and 4<i>n</i> (Amphibia, Anura) reveals unusual extra sequences in the variable region V2

2004· article· en· W2118918006 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lúcia Elvira Alvares, J. Wuyts, Yves Van de Peer, Eduardo P Silva, Luiz Lehmann Coutinho, Olivier Brison, Itamar R. G. Ruiz

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoVlaamse regeringFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsBiology18S ribosomal RNARibosomal RNAEvolutionary biologyRibosomal DNAGeneticsNucleic acid sequencePloidyPhylogeneticsDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nucleotide sequence of the rDNA 18S region isolated from diploid and tetraploid species of the amphibian Odontophrynus americanus was determined and used to predict the secondary structure of the corresponding 18S rRNA molecules. Comparison of the primary and secondary structures for the 2n and 4n species confirmed that these species are very closely related. Only three nucleotide substitutions were observed, accounting for 99% identity between the 18S sequences, whereas several changes were detected by comparison with the Xenopus laevis 18S sequence (96% identity). Most changes were located in highly variable regions of the molecule. A noticeable feature of the Odontophrynus 18S rRNA was the presence of unusual extra sequences in the V2 region, between helices 9 and 11. These extra sequences do not fit the model for secondary structure predicted for vertebrate 18S rRNA.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→