Evolutionary dynamics of abundant stop codon readthrough in <i>Anopheles</i> and <i>Drosophila</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Translational stop codon readthrough was virtually unknown in eukaryotic genomes until recent developments in comparative genomics and new experimental techniques revealed evidence of readthrough in hundreds of fly genes and several human, worm, and yeast genes. Here, we use the genomes of 21 species of Anopheles mosquitoes and improved comparative techniques to identify evolutionary signatures of conserved, functional readthrough of 353 stop codons in the malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae , and 51 additional Drosophila melanogaster stop codons, with several cases of double and triple readthrough including readthrough of two adjacent stop codons, supporting our earlier prediction of abundant readthrough in pancrustacea genomes. Comparisons between Anopheles and Drosophila allow us to transcend the static picture provided by single-clade analysis to explore the evolutionary dynamics of abundant readthrough. We find that most differences between the readthrough repertoires of the two species are due to readthrough gain or loss in existing genes, rather than to birth of new genes or to gene death; that RNA structures are sometimes gained or lost while readthrough persists; and that readthrough is more likely to be lost at TAA and TAG stop codons. We also determine which characteristic properties of readthrough predate readthrough and which are clade-specific. We estimate that there are more than 600 functional readthrough stop codons in A. gambiae and 900 in D. melanogaster . We find evidence that readthrough is used to regulate peroxisomal targeting in two genes. Finally, we use the sequenced centipede genome to refine the phylogenetic extent of abundant readthrough.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".