The distinctive signatures of promoter regions and operon junctions across prokaryotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we show that regions upstream of first transcribed genes have oligonucleotide signatures that distinguish them from regions upstream of genes in the middle of operons. Databases of experimentally confirmed transcription units do not exist for most genomes. Thus, to expand the analyses into genomes with no experimentally confirmed data, we used genes conserved adjacent in evolutionarily distant genomes as representatives of genes inside operons. Likewise, we used divergently transcribed genes as representative examples of first transcribed genes. In model organisms, the trinucleotide signatures of regions upstream of these representative genes allow for operon predictions with accuracies close to those obtained with known operon data (0.8). Signature-based operon predictions have more similar phylogenetic profiles and higher proportions of genes in the same pathways than predicted transcription unit boundaries (TUBs). These results confirm that we are separating genes with related functions, as expected for operons, from genes not necessarily related, as expected for genes in different transcription units. We also test the quality of the predictions using microarray data in six genomes and show that the signature-predicted operons tend to have high correlations of expression. Oligonucleotide signatures should expand the number of tools available to identify operons even in poorly characterized genomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".