MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147870675 · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-131

Genomic sequence of a mutant strain of Caenorhabditis elegans with an altered recombination pattern

2010· article· en· W2147870675 on OpenAlexaff
Ann M. Rose, Nigel J. O’Neil, Mikhail Bilenky, Yaron S.N. Butterfield, Nawar Malhis, Stéphane Flibotte, Martin Jones, Marco A. Marra, David L. Baillie, Steven J.M. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Genomics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityGenome British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaenorhabditis elegansBiologyGeneticsRecombinationCaenorhabditisMutantSequence (biology)Strain (injury)MutationComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The original sequencing and annotation of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome along with recent advances in sequencing technology provide an exceptional opportunity for the genomic analysis of wild-type and mutant strains. Using the Illumina Genome Analyzer, we sequenced the entire genome of Rec-1, a strain that alters the distribution of meiotic crossovers without changing the overall frequency. Rec-1 was derived from ethylmethane sulfonate (EMS)-treated strains, one of which had a high level of transposable element mobility. Sequencing of this strain provides an opportunity to examine the consequences on the genome of altering the distribution of meiotic recombination events. RESULTS: Using Illumina sequencing and MAQ software, 83% of the base pair sequence reads were aligned to the reference genome available at Wormbase, providing a 21-fold coverage of the genome. Using the software programs MAQ and Slider, we observed 1124 base pair differences between Rec-1 and the reference genome in Wormbase (WS190), and 441 between the mutagenized Rec-1 (BC313) and the wild-type N2 strain (VC2010). The most frequent base-substitution was G:C to A:T, 141 for the entire genome most of which were on chromosomes I or X, 55 and 31 respectively. With this data removed, no obvious pattern in the distribution of the base differences along the chromosomes was apparent. No major chromosomal rearrangements were observed, but additional insertions of transposable elements were detected. There are 11 extra copies of Tc1, and 8 of Tc2 in the Rec-1 genome, most likely the remains of past high-hopper activity in a progenitor strain. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of high-throughput sequencing was able to detect regions of direct repeat sequences, deletions, insertions of transposable elements, and base pair differences. A subset of sequence alterations affecting coding regions were confirmed by an independent approach using oligo array comparative genome hybridization. The major phenotype of the Rec-1 strain is an alteration in the preferred position of the meiotic recombination event with no other significant phenotypic consequences. In this study, we observed no evidence of a mutator effect at the nucleotide level attributable to the Rec-1 mutation.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GenomicsSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207