Phylogenomic Analysis of the L1 Retrotransposons in Deuterostomia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L1 retrotransposons constitute the largest single component of mammalian genomes. In contrast to the single remaining lineage of L1 retrotransposons in mammalian genomes, some teleost fishes contain a highly diverse L1 retrotransposon repertoire. Major evolutionary changes in L1 retrotransposon repertoires have therefore taken place in the land vertebrates (Tetrapoda). The lack of sequence data for L1 retrotransposons in the basal living Tetrapoda lineages prompted an investigation of their distribution and evolution in the genomes of the key tetrapod lineages, amphibians and reptiles, and in lungfishes. In this study, we combined genome database searches with PCR analysis to demonstrate that L1 retrotransposons are present in the genomes of lungfishes, amphibians, and lepidosaurs. Phylogenomic analysis shows that the genomes of Deuterostomia possess three highly divergent groups of L1 retrotransposons, with distinct distribution patterns. The analysis of L1 diversity shows the presence of a very large number of diverse L1 families, each with very low copy numbers, at the time of the origin of tetrapods. During the evolution of synapsids, all but one L1 lineage have been lost. This study establishes that the loss of L1 diversity and explosion in copy numbers occurred in the synapsid ancestors of mammals, and was most probably caused by severe population bottlenecks.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".