Islands of co‐expressed neighbouring genes in <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> suggest higher‐order chromosome domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biochemical and cytogenetic experiments have led to the hypothesis that eukaryotic chromatin is organized into a series of distinct domains that are functionally independent. Two expectations of this hypothesis are: (i) adjacent genes are more frequently co-expressed than is expected by chance; and (ii) co-expressed neighbouring genes are often functionally related. Here we report that over 10% of Arabidopsis thaliana genes are within large, co-expressed chromosomal regions. Two per cent (497/22,520) of genes are highly co-expressed (r > 0.7), about five times the number expected by chance. These genes fall into 226 groups distributed across the genome, and each group typically contains two to three genes. Among the highly co-expressed groups, 40% (91/226) have genes with high amino acid sequence similarity. Nonetheless, duplicate genes alone do not explain the observed levels of co-expression. Co-expressed, non-homologous genes are transcribed in parallel, share functions, and lie close together more frequently than expected. Our results show that the A. thaliana genome contains domains of gene expression. Small domains have highly co-expressed genes that often share functional and sequence similarity and are probably co-regulated by nearby regulatory sequences. Genes within large, significantly correlated groups are typically co-regulated at a low level, suggesting the presence of large chromosomal domains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".