The (in)complete organelle genome: exploring the use and nonuse of available technologies for characterizing mitochondrial and plastid chromosomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not long ago, scientists paid dearly in time, money and skill for every nucleotide that they sequenced. Today, DNA sequencing technologies epitomize the slogan 'faster, easier, cheaper and more', and in many ways, sequencing an entire genome has become routine, even for the smallest laboratory groups. This is especially true for mitochondrial and plastid genomes. Given their relatively small sizes and high copy numbers per cell, organelle DNAs are currently among the most highly sequenced kind of chromosome. But accurately characterizing an organelle genome and the information it encodes can require much more than DNA sequencing and bioinformatics analyses. Organelle genomes can be surprisingly complex and can exhibit convoluted and unconventional modes of gene expression. Unravelling this complexity can demand a wide assortment of experiments, from pulsed-field gel electrophoresis to Southern and Northern blots to RNA analyses. Here, we show that it is exactly these types of 'complementary' analyses that are often lacking from contemporary organelle genome papers, particularly short 'genome announcement' articles. Consequently, crucial and interesting features of organelle chromosomes are going undescribed, which could ultimately lead to a poor understanding and even a misrepresentation of these genomes and the genes they express. High-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics have made it easy to sequence and assemble entire chromosomes, but they should not be used as a substitute for or at the expense of other types of genomic characterization methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".