Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine exon junctions near apparent amino acid insertions and deletions in alignments of orthologous protein-coding genes. In 1,917 ortholog families across nine oomycete genomes, 10-20% of introns are near an alignment gap, indicating at first sight that splice-site displacements are frequent. We designed a robust algorithmic procedure for the delineation of intron-containing homologous regions, and combined it with a parsimony-based reconstruction of intron loss, gain, and splice-site shift events on a phylogeny. The reconstruction implies that 12% of introns underwent an acceptor-site shift, and 10% underwent a donor-site shift. In order to offset gene annotation problems, we amended the procedure with the reannotation of intron boundaries using alignment evidence. The corresponding reconstruction involves much fewer intron gain and splice-site shift events. The frequency of acceptor- and donor-side shifts drops to 4% and 3%, respectively, which are not much different from what one would expect by random codon insertions and deletions. In other words, gaps near exon junctions are mostly artifacts of gene annotation rather than evidence of sliding intron boundaries. Our study underscores the importance of using well-supported gene structure annotations in comparative studies. When transcription evidence is not available, we propose a robust ancestral reconstruction procedure that corrects misannotated intron boundaries using sequence alignments. The results corroborate the view that boundary shifts and complete intron sliding are only accidental in eukaryotic genome evolution and have a negligible impact on protein diversity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".