MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166638314 · doi:10.1093/gbe/evr001

Correlation between Nuclear Plastid DNA Abundance and Plastid Number Supports the Limited Transfer Window Hypothesis

2011· article· en· W2166638314 on OpenAlexaff
David Roy Smith, Kate Crosby, W. Robert Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Biology and Evolution · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications
KeywordsPlastidBiologyGenomeNuclear DNAMitochondrial DNAEvolutionary biologyNuclear geneDNADNA sequencingGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The abundance of nuclear plastid DNA-like sequences (NUPTs) in nuclear genomes can vary immensely; however, the forces responsible for this variation are poorly understood. "The limited transfer window hypothesis" predicts that species with only one plastid per cell will have fewer NUPTs than those with many plastids per cell, but a lack of genome sequence data from monoplastidic species has made this hypothesis difficult to test. Here, by analyzing newly available genome sequences from diverse mono- and polyplastidic taxa, we show that the hypothesis holds. On average, the polyplastidic species we studied had 80 times more NUPTs than those that were monoplastidic. Moreover, NUPT content was positively related to nuclear genome size, indicating that in addition to plastid number, NUPTs are influenced by the forces controlling the expansion and contraction of noncoding nuclear DNA. These findings are consistent with data on nuclear DNAs of mitochondrial origin (NUMTs), suggesting that similar processes govern the abundance of both NUPTs and NUMTs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations135
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207