MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170772311 · doi:10.1186/gb-2003-4-8-r47

Recent segmental and gene duplications in the mouse genome

2003· article· en· W2170772311 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph Cheung, Michael D. Wilson, Junjun Zhang, Razi Khaja, Jeffrey R. MacDonald, Henry H. Heng, Ben F. Koop, Stephen W. Scherer

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCGenome CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of California, Santa CruzHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsSegmental duplicationGenomeGene duplicationBiologyGeneGeneticsWhole genome sequencingGenome projectGenome evolutionHuman genomeReference genomeSequence (biology)Computational biologyGene family

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The high quality of the mouse genome draft sequence and its associated annotations are an invaluable biological resource. Identifying recent duplications in the mouse genome, especially in regions containing genes, may highlight important events in recent murine evolution. In addition, detecting recent sequence duplications can reveal potentially problematic regions of the genome assembly. We use BLAST-based computational heuristics to identify large (>/= 5 kb) and recent (>/= 90% sequence identity) segmental duplications in the mouse genome sequence. Here we present a database of recently duplicated regions of the mouse genome found in the mouse genome sequencing consortium (MGSC) February 2002 and February 2003 assemblies. RESULTS: We determined that 33.6 Mb of 2,695 Mb (1.2%) of sequence from the February 2003 mouse genome sequence assembly is involved in recent segmental duplications, which is less than that observed in the human genome (around 3.5-5%). From this dataset, 8.9 Mb (26%) of the duplication content consisted of 'unmapped' chromosome sequence. Moreover, we suspect that an additional 18.5 Mb of sequence is involved in duplication artifacts arising from sequence misassignment errors in this genome assembly. By searching for genes that are located within these regions, we identified 675 genes that mapped to duplicated regions of the mouse genome. Sixteen of these genes appear to have been duplicated independently in the human genome. From our dataset we further characterized a 42 kb recent segmental duplication of Mater, a maternal-effect gene essential for embryogenesis in mice. CONCLUSION: Our results provide an initial analysis of the recently duplicated sequence and gene content of the mouse genome. Many of these duplicated loci, as well as regions identified to be involved in potential sequence misassignment errors, will require further mapping and sequencing to achieve accuracy. A Genome Browser database was set up to display the identified duplication content presented in this work. This data will also be relevant to the growing number of investigators who use the draft genome sequence for experimental design and analysis.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations95
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome biologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207