MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209485449 · doi:10.1139/gen-2015-0079

The complete mitochondrial genome of <i>Plodia interpunctella</i> (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and comparison with other Pyraloidea insects

2015· article· en· W2209485449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiu‐Ning Liu, Xin-Yue Chai, Dan‐Dan Bian, Chun‐Lin Zhou, Bo‐Ping Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyralidaeBiologyIntergenic regionMitochondrial DNALepidoptera genitaliaGenomeStart codonTransfer RNAGeneticsGenePhylogenetic treeStop codonRetrotransposonNucleotideBotanyRNATransposable element

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mitochondrial (mt) genome can provide important information for the understanding of phylogenetic relationships. The complete mt genome of Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) has been sequenced. The circular genome is 15 287 bp in size, encoding 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs), 2 rRNA genes, 22 tRNA genes, and a control region. The AT skew of this mt genome is slightly negative, and the nucleotide composition is biased toward A+T nucleotides (80.15%). All PCGs start with the typical ATN (ATA, ATC, ATG, and ATT) codons, except for the cox1 gene which may start with the CGA codon. Four of the 13 PCGs harbor the incomplete termination codon T or TA. All the tRNA genes are folded into the typical clover-leaf structure of mitochondrial tRNA, except for trnS1 (AGN) in which the DHU arm fails to form a stable stem-loop structure. The overlapping sequences are 35 bp in total and are found in seven different locations. A total of 240 bp of intergenic spacers are scattered in 16 regions. The control region of the mt genome is 327 bp in length and consisted of several features common to the sequenced lepidopteran insects. Phylogenetic analysis based on 13 PCGs using the Maximum Likelihood method shows that the placement of P. interpunctella was within the Pyralidae.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207