MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Protists and the Wild, Wild West of Gene Expression: New Frontiers, Lawlessness, and Misfits

2016· review· en· W2306431843 on OpenAlexafffund
David Roy Smith, Patrick J. Keeling

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Microbiology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGeneProtistGenomeGeneticsEvolutionary biologyHomology (biology)Universality (dynamical systems)Organism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DNA double helix has been called one of life's most elegant structures, largely because of its universality, simplicity, and symmetry. The expression of information encoded within DNA, however, can be far from simple or symmetric and is sometimes surprisingly variable, convoluted, and wantonly inefficient. Although exceptions to the rules exist in certain model systems, the true extent to which life has stretched the limits of gene expression is made clear by nonmodel systems, particularly protists (microbial eukaryotes). The nuclear and organelle genomes of protists are subject to the most tangled forms of gene expression yet identified. The complicated and extravagant picture of the underlying genetics of eukaryotic microbial life changes how we think about the flow of genetic information and the evolutionary processes shaping it. Here, we discuss the origins, diversity, and growing interest in noncanonical protist gene expression and its relationship to genomic architecture.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of MicrobiologySame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207