Yeast Ancestral Genome Reconstructions: The Possibilities of Computational Methods II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the availability of assembled eukaryotic genomes, the first one being a budding yeast, many computational methods for the reconstruction of ancestral karyotypes and gene orders have been developed. The difficulty has always been to assess their reliability, since we often miss a good knowledge of the true ancestral genomes to compare their results to, as well as a good knowledge of the evolutionary mechanisms to test them on realistic simulated data. In this study, we propose some measures of reliability of several kinds of methods, and apply them to infer and analyse the architectures of two ancestral yeast genomes, based on the sequence of seven assembled extant ones. The pre-duplication common ancestor of S. cerevisiae and C. glabrata has been inferred manually by Gordon et al. (Plos Genet. 2009). We show why, in this case, a good convergence of the methods is explained by some properties of the data, and why results are reliable. In another study, Jean et al. (J. Comput Biol. 2009) proposed an ancestral architecture of the last common ancestor of S. kluyveri, K. thermotolerans, K. lactis, A. gossypii, and Z. rouxii inferred by a computational method. In this case, we show that the dataset does not seem to contain enough information to infer a reliable architecture, and we construct a higher resolution dataset which gives a good reliability on a new ancestral configuration.
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 | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".