Recombination and the maintenance of plant organelle genome stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like their nuclear counterpart, the plastid and mitochondrial genomes of plants have to be faithfully replicated and repaired to ensure the normal functioning of the plant. Inability to maintain organelle genome stability results in plastid and/or mitochondrial defects, which can lead to potentially detrimental phenotypes. Fortunately, plant organelles have developed multiple strategies to maintain the integrity of their genetic material. Of particular importance among these processes is the extensive use of DNA recombination. In fact, recombination has been implicated in both the replication and the repair of organelle genomes. Revealingly, deregulation of recombination in organelles results in genomic instability, often accompanied by adverse consequences for plant fitness. The recent identification of four families of proteins that prevent aberrant recombination of organelle DNA sheds much needed mechanistic light on this important process. What comes out of these investigations is a partial portrait of the recombination surveillance machinery in which plants have co-opted some proteins of prokaryotic origin but have also evolved whole new factors to keep their organelle genomes intact. These new features presumably optimized the protection of plastid and mitochondrial genomes against the particular genotoxic stresses they face.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".