MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143762151 · doi:10.1534/genetics.114.162842

The Effect of Mutation and Selection on Codon Adaptation in<i>Escherichia coli</i>Bacteriophage

2014· article· en· W2143762151 on OpenAlexaff
Shivapriya Chithambaram, Ramanandan Prabhakaran, Xuhua Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsBacteriophageEscherichia coliMutationSelection (genetic algorithm)Adaptation (eye)Gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studying phage codon adaptation is important not only for understanding the process of translation elongation, but also for reengineering phages for medical and industrial purposes. To evaluate the effect of mutation and selection on phage codon usage, we developed an index to measure selection imposed by host translation machinery, based on the difference in codon usage between all host genes and highly expressed host genes. We developed linear and nonlinear models to estimate the C→T mutation bias in different phage lineages and to evaluate the relative effect of mutation and host selection on phage codon usage. C→T-biased mutations occur more frequently in single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) phages than in double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) phages and affect not only synonymous codon usage, but also nonsynonymous substitutions at second codon positions, especially in ssDNA phages. The host translation machinery affects codon adaptation in both dsDNA and ssDNA phages, with a stronger effect on dsDNA phages than on ssDNA phages. Strand asymmetry with the associated local variation in mutation bias can significantly interfere with codon adaptation in both dsDNA and ssDNA phages.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207