MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137166663 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msl012

Cytosine Usage Modulates the Correlation between CDS Length and CG Content in Prokaryotic Genomes

2006· article· en· W2137166663 on OpenAlexaff
Xuhua Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenomeNegative selectionCytosineSelection (genetic algorithm)CorrelationGC-contentPositive selectionNegative correlationGeneticsEvolutionary biologyComputational biologyGeneComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have argued that, given the AT-rich nature of stop codons, the length and CG% of coding sequences (CDSs) should be positively correlated. This prediction is generally supported empirically by prokaryotic genomes. However, the correlation is weak for a number of species, with 4 species showing a negative correlation. Here we formulate a more general hypothesis incorporating selection against cytosine (C) usage to explain the lack of strong positive correlation between the length and GC% of CDSs. Two factors contribute to the selection against C usage in long CDSs. First, C is the least abundant nucleotide in the cell, and a long CDS should have fewer Cs to increase transcription efficiency. Second, C is prone to mutation to U/T and selection for increased reliability should reduce C usage in long CDSs. Empirical data from prokaryotic genomes lend strong support for this new hypothesis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207