MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313048630 · doi:10.1139/g11-006

Mitochondrial genome sequences of representatives of three families of scorpionflies (Order Mecoptera) and evolution in a major duplication of coding sequence

2011· article· en· W2313048630 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Andrew T. Beckenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyGene duplicationGeneGeneticsGenomeMitochondrial DNACoding region

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complete mitochondrial DNA sequences of a hangingfly, Bittacus pilicornis (Mecoptera: Bittacidae), a snow scorpion fly, Boreus elegans (Mecoptera: Boreidae), and a nearly complete sequence from another scorpionfly species, Microchorista philpotti (Mecoptera: Nannochoristidae) were determined. The coding sequence of all three genomes includes the 37 genes normally found in insect mtDNAs, in the same gene order as first described in Drosophila. In addition to the standard set of genes, the Microchorista sequence includes a large duplication of the coding region. The duplication is at least 4 kb (and may be much larger) and includes the remnants of three protein-coding genes and seven tRNA genes. The duplication evidently arose as a single event, and the duplicated region can be aligned in its entirety with the corresponding region of the functional genome. Although most of the genes contain defects that render them nonfunctional, analysis shows that the protein-coding genes in the duplicated region evolved for a considerable period under constraints expected of functional protein-coding genes. It is evident, therefore, that for a period two copies of some of the mitochondrial genes were functional in this species, including genes coding for proteins.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207