MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139617371 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msn079

Selection on Amino Acid Substitutions in Arabidopsis

2008· article· en· W2139617371 on OpenAlexaff
John Paul Foxe, V.-u.-N. Dar, Hongliang Zheng, Magnus Nordborg, Brandon S. Gaut, Stephen Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsNonsynonymous substitutionBiologyNegative selectionGeneticsArabidopsis thalianaNucleotide diversityOutbreeding depressionBalancing selectionEvolutionary biologyInbreedingPopulationSelection (genetic algorithm)GeneGenetic variationHaplotypeAlleleGenomeMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of nucleotide diversity have found an excess of low-frequency amino acid polymorphisms segregating in Arabidopsis thaliana, suggesting a predominance of weak purifying selection acting on amino acid polymorphism in this inbreeding species. Here, we investigate levels of diversity and divergence at synonymous and nonsynonymous sites in 6 circumpolar populations of the outbreeding Arabidopsis lyrata and compare these results with A. thaliana, to test for differences in mutation and selection parameters across genes, populations, and species. We find that A. lyrata shows an excess of low-frequency nonsynonymous polymorphisms both within populations and species wide, consistent with weak purifying selection similar to the patterns observed in A. thaliana. Furthermore, nonsynonymous polymorphisms tend to be more restricted in their population distribution in A. lyrata, consistent with purifying selection preventing their geographic spread. Highly expressed genes show a reduced ratio of amino acid to synonymous change for both polymorphism and fixed differences, suggesting a general pattern of stronger purifying selection on high-expression proteins.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations79
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207