MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147217717 · doi:10.1073/pnas.012422299

Sequence evolution and copy number of Ty1- <i>copia</i> retrotransposons in diverse plant genomes

2001· article· en· W2147217717 on OpenAlexafffund
Aura Navarro‐Quezada, Daniel J. Schoen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRetrotransposonNonsynonymous substitutionTransposable elementBiologyPhylogenetic treeGeneticsNegative selectionGenomeSequence (biology)Molecular evolutionGenome evolutionPhylogeneticsRetroposonLow copy numberEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequence evolution of the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene in retrotransposons belonging to the Ty1-copia class was studied in 11 plant species. Phylogenetic reconstruction of the evolutionary history of RT sequences indicated a strong pattern of purifying selection, manifested as high ratios of third to first plus second codon position substitutions, and low ratios of nonsynonymous substitutions per nonsynonymous site to synonymous substitutions per synonymous site, especially in internal portions of the element phylogenies. Evidence of purifying selection was most pronounced in plant species with low estimated copy numbers of Ty1-copia elements. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that high element turnover rates (e.g., caused by high rates of element loss and selection against high element copy number) favors elements capable of transposition. Simulations of RT sequence evolution were conducted to help verify the logical validity of this conclusion. The results argue that it is incorrect to assume that low copy numbers of transposable elements are the product of reduced levels of element activity.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.274
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

Citations37
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207