DNA is structured as a linear “jigsaw puzzle” in the genomes of<i>Arabidopsis</i>, rice, and budding yeast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of how a genome is structured and organized from its constituent elements is crucial to understanding its biology and evolution. Here, we report the genome structuring and organization pattern as revealed by systems analysis of the sequences of three model species, Arabidopsis, rice and yeast, at the whole-genome and chromosome levels. We found that all fundamental function elements (FFE) constituting the genomes, including genes (GEN), DNA transposable elements (DTE), retrotransposable elements (RTE), simple sequence repeats (SSR), and (or) low complexity repeats (LCR), are structured in a nonrandom and correlative manner, thus leading to a hypothesis that the DNA of the species is structured as a linear "jigsaw puzzle". Furthermore, we showed that different FFE differ in their importance in the formation and evolution of the DNA jigsaw puzzle structure between species. DTE and RTE play more important roles than GEN, LCR, and SSR in Arabidopsis, whereas GEN and RTE play more important roles than LCR, SSR, and DTE in rice. The genes having multiple recognized functions play more important roles than those having single functions. These results provide useful knowledge necessary for better understanding genome biology and evolution of the species and for effective molecular breeding of rice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".