DNA Replication and Strand Asymmetry in Prokaryotic and Mitochondrial Genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different patterns of strand asymmetry have been documented in a variety of prokaryotic genomes as well as mitochondrial genomes. Because different replication mechanisms often lead to different patterns of strand asymmetry, much can be learned of replication mechanisms by examining strand asymmetry. Here I summarize the diverse patterns of strand asymmetry among different taxonomic groups to suggest that (1) the single-origin replication may not be universal among bacterial species as the endosymbionts Wigglesworthia glossinidia, Wolbachia species, cyanobacterium Synechocystis 6803 and Mycoplasma pulmonis genomes all exhibit strand asymmetry patterns consistent with the multiple origins of replication, (2) different replication origins in some archaeal genomes leave quite different patterns of strand asymmetry, suggesting that different replication origins in the same genome may be differentially used, (3) mitochondrial genomes from representative vertebrate species share one strand asymmetry pattern consistent with the strand-displacement replication documented in mammalian mtDNA, suggesting that the mtDNA replication mechanism in mammals may be shared among all vertebrate species, and (4) mitochondrial genomes from primitive forms of metazoans such as the sponge and hydra (representing Porifera and Cnidaria, respectively), as well as those from plants, have strand asymmetry patterns similar to single-origin or multi-origin replications observed in prokaryotes and are drastically different from mitochondrial genomes from other metazoans. This may explain why sponge and hydra mitochondrial genomes, as well as plant mitochondrial genomes, evolves much slower than those from other metazoans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".