MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172179959 · doi:10.1093/molbev/mss163

Testing the Infinitely Many Genes Model for the Evolution of the Bacterial Core Genome and Pangenome

2012· article· en· W2172179959 on OpenAlexafffund
R. Eric Collins, Paul G. Higgs

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCompute CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsCoalescent theoryGenomeBiologyPhylogenetic treeBacterial genome sizeTree (set theory)GeneGenome sizeEvolutionary biologyHorizontal gene transferPhylogeneticsGeneticsMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When groups of related bacterial genomes are compared, the number of core genes found in all genomes is usually much less than the mean genome size, whereas the size of the pangenome (the set of genes found on at least one of the genomes) is much larger than the mean size of one genome. We analyze 172 complete genomes of Bacilli and compare the properties of the pangenomes and core genomes of monophyletic subsets taken from this group. We then assess the capabilities of several evolutionary models to predict these properties. The infinitely many genes (IMG) model is based on the assumption that each new gene can arise only once. The predictions of the model depend on the shape of the evolutionary tree that underlies the divergence of the genomes. We calculate results for coalescent trees, star trees, and arbitrary phylogenetic trees of predefined fixed branch length. On a star tree, the pangenome size increases linearly with the number of genomes, as has been suggested in some previous studies, whereas on a coalescent tree, it increases logarithmically. The coalescent tree gives a better fit to the data, for all the examples we consider. In some cases, a fixed phylogenetic tree proved better than the coalescent tree at reproducing structure in the gene frequency spectrum, but little improvement was gained in predictions of the core and pangenome sizes. Most of the data are well explained by a model with three classes of gene: an essential class that is found in all genomes, a slow class whose rate of origination and deletion is slow compared with the time of divergence of the genomes, and a fast class showing rapid origination and deletion. Although the majority of genes originating in a genome are in the fast class, these genes are not retained for long periods, and the majority of genes present in a genome are in the slow or essential classes. In general, we show that the IMG model is useful for comparison with experimental genome data both for species level and widely divergent taxonomic groups. Software implementing the described formulae is provided at http://github.com/rec3141/pangenome.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.249
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

Citations129
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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