MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151578179 · doi:10.1093/gbe/evt065

Genomic Dynamics of Transposable Elements in the Western Clawed Frog (Silurana tropicalis)

2013· article· en· W2151578179 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiangshan Jane Shen, Jonathan Dushoff, Adam J. Bewick, Frédéric J. J. Chain, Ben J. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Biology and Evolution · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersOntario Ministry of Economic Development and InnovationUniversity of Washington
KeywordsBiologyTransposable elementRetrotransposonGenomeGeneticsGenome evolutionInverted repeatEvolutionary biologyCopy-number variationLong terminal repeatGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transposable elements (TEs) are repetitive DNA sequences that can make new copies of themselves that are inserted elsewhere in a host genome. The abundance and distributions of TEs vary considerably among phylogenetically diverse hosts. With the aim of exploring the basis of this variation, we evaluated correlations between several genomic variables and the presence of TEs and non-TE repeats in the complete genome sequence of the Western clawed frog (Silurana tropicalis). This analysis reveals patterns of TE insertion consistent with gene disruption but not with the insertional preference model. Analysis of non-TE repeats recovered unique features of their genome-wide distribution when compared with TE repeats, including no strong correlation with exons and a particularly strong negative correlation with GC content. We also collected polymorphism data from 25 TE insertion sites in 19 wild-caught S. tropicalis individuals. DNA transposon insertions were fixed at eight of nine sites and at a high frequency at one of nine, whereas insertions of long terminal repeat (LTR) and non-LTR retrotransposons were fixed at only 4 of 16 sites and at low frequency at 12 of 16. A maximum likelihood model failed to attribute these differences in insertion frequencies to variation in selection pressure on different classes of TE, opening the possibility that other phenomena such as variation in rates of replication or duration of residence in the genome could play a role. Taken together, these results identify factors that sculpt heterogeneity in TE distribution in S. tropicalis and illustrate that genomic dynamics differ markedly among TE classes and between TE and non-TE repeats.

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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome Biology and EvolutionSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207