MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129202098 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0408307102

Identification of a nematode chemosensory gene family

2004· article· en· W2129202098 on OpenAlexaff
Nansheng Chen, Shraddha Pai, Zhongying Zhao, Allan K. Mah, Rebecca Newbury, Robert Johnsen, Zeynep F. Altun, Donald G. Moerman, David L. Baillie, Lincoln Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCaenorhabditis elegansCaenorhabditisGeneGene familyGeneticsGene duplicationNematodeGenomeTandem exon duplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking advantage of the recent availability of the whole genome sequence of Caenorhabditis briggsae, a closely related nematode to Caenorhabditis elegans, we have examined the chemosensory gene superfamily by using comparative genomic methods. We have identified a chemosensory gene family, serpentine receptor class ab (srab), which exists in both species with 25 members in C. elegans and 14 members in C. briggsae. More than 20% of these gene models are reannotated. The srab family is similar to, but distinct from, the previously described serpentine receptor class a (sra) family and shows a differential expansion in C. elegans similar to that previously described for sra. The cellular expression patterns for multiple members of the srab family in both phasmid neurons in the tail and amphid neurons in the head supports the conclusion that they are chemosensory genes and suggests that they may play a role in integrating chemosensory inputs from both ends of the organism. The expansion of both the srab and sra gene families in C. elegans relative to C. briggsae is due to multiple rounds of tandem duplication and translocation of individual genes.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations53
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207