MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169873922 · doi:10.1002/bies.201500064

Short‐range inversions: Rethinking organelle genome stability

2015· review· en· W2169873922 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Tremblay‐Belzile, Étienne Lepage, Éric Zampini, Normand Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHolliday junctionGenome instabilityBiologyInverted repeatGenomeGeneticsReciprocalOrganellePalindromeDNAMechanism (biology)DNA replicationComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyHomologous recombinationGeneDNA damagePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the organelles of plants and mammals, recent evidence suggests that genomic instability stems in large part from template switching events taking place during DNA replication. Although more than one mechanism may be responsible for this, some similarities exist between the different proposed models. These can be separated into two main categories, depending on whether they involve a single-strand-switching or a reciprocal-strand-switching event. Single-strand-switching events lead to intermediates containing Y junctions, whereas reciprocal-strand-switching creates Holliday junctions. Common features in all the described models include replication stress, fork stalling and the presence of inverted repeats, but no single element appears to be required in all cases. We review the field, and examine the ideas that several mechanisms may take place in any given genome, and that the presence of palindromes or inverted repeats in certain regions may favor specific rearrangements.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207