MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157047481 · doi:10.1534/genetics.114.162883

Birth, Death, and Diversification of Mobile Promoters in Prokaryotes

2014· article· en· W2157047481 on OpenAlexaff
Mark W. J. van Passel, Harm Nijveen, Lindi M. Wahl

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsBiologyMobile genetic elementsGenomePromoterGeneticsGene duplicationHorizontal gene transferGeneComputational biologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A previous study of prokaryotic genomes identified large reservoirs of putative mobile promoters (PMPs), that is, homologous promoter sequences associated with nonhomologous coding sequences. Here we extend this data set to identify the full complement of mobile promoters in sequenced prokaryotic genomes. The expanded search identifies nearly 40,000 PMP sequences, 90% of which occur in noncoding regions of the genome. To gain further insight from this data set, we develop a birth-death-diversification model for mobile genetic elements subject to sequence diversification; applying the model to PMPs we are able to quantify the relative importance of duplication, loss, horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and diversification to the maintenance of the PMP reservoir. The model predicts low rates of HGT relative to the duplication and loss of PMP copies, rapid dynamics of PMP families, and a pool of PMPs that exist as a single copy in a genome at any given time, despite their mobility. We report evidence of these "singletons" at high frequencies in prokaryotic genomes. We also demonstrate that including selection, either for or against PMPs, was not necessary to describe the observed data.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207