MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2337170244 · doi:10.1139/gen-2016-0035

Phylogenetic relationships and protein modelling revealed two distinct subfamilies of group II <i>HKT</i> genes between crop and model grasses

2016· article· en· W2337170244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Harsha Ariyarathna, Michael G. Francki

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSociety of Interventional Radiology Foundation
KeywordsBiologySubfamilyPhylogenetic treeFunctional divergenceEvolutionary biologyLineage (genetic)PhylogeneticsGeneGeneticsGene duplicationGene familyGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular evolution of large protein families in closely related species can provide useful insights on structural functional relationships. Phylogenetic analysis of the grass-specific group II HKT genes identified two distinct subfamilies, I and II. Subfamily II was represented in all species, whereas subfamily I was identified only in the small grain cereals and possibly originated from an ancestral gene duplication post divergence from the coarse grain cereal lineage. The core protein structures were highly analogous despite there being no more than 58% amino acid identity between members of the two subfamilies. Distinctly variable regions in known functional domains, however, indicated functional divergence of the two subfamilies. The subsets of codons residing external to known functional domains predicted signatures of positive Darwinian selection potentially identifying new domains of functional divergence and providing new insights on the structural function and relationships between protein members of the two subfamilies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→