MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2332821782 · doi:10.1139/w11-102

Computational prediction of microRNAs and their targets from three unicellular algae species with complete genome sequences

2011· article· en· W2332821782 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aiyou Huang, Xiaojie Wu, Guangce Wang, Zhaojun Jia, Linwen He

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGenomeBiologyAlgaeComputational biologymicroRNAGeneticsBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genome sequences of Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Thalassiosira pseudonana, and Cyanidioschyzon merolae have provided significant evidence for the secondary endosymbiosis of diatoms in regard to the genome. Yet little about their relationships in regard to gene regulation pattern, such as microRNA (miRNA), has been reported. Using a homology search based on genomic sequences, 13, 3, and 7 predicted miRNA genes were found in genomes from P. tricornutum, T. pseudonana, and C. merolae, respectively. Of the 23 miRNA genes, 18 had homology with animal miRNAs, implying that they are ancestral miRNAs. A phylogenetic tree based on common miRNA families shared by these three unicellular algae, higher plants, and animals showed that P. tricornutum shared most miRNAs with animals. The phylogenetic tree also showed that C. merolae shared more miRNAs with plants than did the two diatoms, and the majority of its miRNAs were shared with the two diatoms. Our results were consistent with diatoms originating from a secondary endosymbiosis.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Microbiology→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→