The evolutionary fate of MULE-mediated duplications of host gene fragments in rice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA transposons are known to frequently capture duplicated fragments of host genes. The evolutionary impact of this phenomenon depends on how frequently the fragments retain protein-coding function as opposed to becoming pseudogenes. Gene fragment duplication by Mutator-like elements (MULEs) has previously been documented in maize, Arabidopsis, and rice. Here we present a rigorous genome-wide analysis of MULEs in the model plant Oryza sativa (domesticated rice). We identify 8274 MULEs with intact termini and target-site duplications (TSDs) and show that 1337 of them contain duplicated host gene fragments. Through a detailed examination of the 5% of duplicated gene fragments that are transcribed, we demonstrate that virtually all cases contain pseudogenic features such as fragmented conserved protein domains, frameshifts, and premature stop codons. In addition, we show that the distribution of the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous amino acid substitution rates for the duplications agrees with the expected distribution for pseudogenes. We conclude that MULE-mediated host gene duplication results in the formation of pseudogenes, not novel functional protein-coding genes; however, the transcribed duplications possess characteristics consistent with a potential role in the regulation of host gene expression.
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 | 0.001 | 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".