MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169865904 · doi:10.1093/gbe/evq079

The Antiquity of Chordate Odorant Receptors Is Revealed by the Discovery of Orthologs in the Cnidarian Nematostella vectensis

2010· article· en· W2169865904 on OpenAlexafffund
Allison Churcher, John S. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Biology and Evolution · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChordateBiologyG protein-coupled receptorEchinodermEvolutionary biologyRhodopsinBody planBilateriaPhylogeneticsGene familyVertebrateGeneGeneticsGenomeReceptorEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vertebrates, olfaction is mediated by several families of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) including odorant receptors (ORs). In this study, we investigated the antiquity of OR genes by searching for amino acid motifs found in chordate ORs among the protein predictions from 12 nonchordate species. Our search uncovered a novel group of genes in the cnidarian Nematostella vectensis. Phylogenetic analysis that included representatives from the other major lineages of rhodopsin-like GPCRs showed that the cnidarian genes, the cephalochordate and vertebrate ORs, and a family of genes from the echinoderm, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, form a monophyletic clade. The taxonomic distribution of these genes indicates that the formation of this clade and therefore the diversification of the rhodopsin-like GPCR family began at least 700 million years ago, prior to the divergence of cnidarians and bilaterians. ORs and other rhodopsin-like GPCRs have roles in cell migration, axon guidance, and neurite growth; therefore, duplication and divergence in this family may have played a key role in the evolution of cell type diversity (including the emergence of complex nervous systems) and in the evolution of metazoan body plan diversity.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome Biology and EvolutionSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207