Spontaneous Chloroplast Mutants Mostly Occur by Replication Slippage and Show a Biased Pattern in the Plastome of <i>Oenothera</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spontaneous plastome mutants have been used as a research tool since the beginning of genetics. However, technical restrictions have severely limited their contributions to research in physiology and molecular biology. Here, we used full plastome sequencing to systematically characterize a collection of 51 spontaneous chloroplast mutants in Oenothera (evening primrose). Most mutants carry only a single mutation. Unexpectedly, the vast majority of mutations do not represent single nucleotide polymorphisms but are insertions/deletions originating from DNA replication slippage events. Only very few mutations appear to be caused by imprecise double-strand break repair, nucleotide misincorporation during replication, or incorrect nucleotide excision repair following oxidative damage. U-turn inversions were not detected. Replication slippage is induced at repetitive sequences that can be very small and tend to have high A/T content. Interestingly, the mutations are not distributed randomly in the genome. The underrepresentation of mutations caused by faulty double-strand break repair might explain the high structural conservation of seed plant plastomes throughout evolution. In addition to providing a fully characterized mutant collection for future research on plastid genetics, gene expression, and photosynthesis, our work identified the spectrum of spontaneous mutations in plastids and reveals that this spectrum is very different from that in the nucleus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".