MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2513585181 · doi:10.1101/073684

Molecular adaptation in Rubisco: discriminating between convergent evolution and positive selection using mechanistic and classical codon models

2016· preprint· en· W2513585181 on OpenAlexaff
Sahar Parto, Nicolas Lartillot

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuBisCOBiologyAdaptation (eye)Molecular evolutionConvergent evolutionCodon usage biasComputational biologyCarbon fixationPositive selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)PhotosynthesisGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGeneBiochemistryPhylogeneticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rubisco (Ribulose-1, 5-biphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase) is the most important enzyme on earth, catalyzing the first step of CO2 fixation in photosynthesis. Its molecular adaptation to C4 photosynthetic pathway has attracted a lot of attention. C4 plants, which comprise less than 5% of land plants, have evolved more efficient photosynthesis compared to C3 plants. Interestingly, a large number of independent transitions from C3 to C4 phenotype have occurred. Each time, the Rubisco enzyme has been subject to similar changes in selective pressure, thus providing an excellent model for convergent evolution at the molecular level. Molecular adaptation is often identified with positive selection and is typically characterized by an elevated ratio of non-synonymous over synonymous substitution rates (dN/dS). However, convergent adaptation is expected to leave a different molecular signature, taking the form of repeated transitions toward identical or similar amino acids. Here, we use a previously introduced codon-based differential selection model to detect and quantify consistent patterns of convergent adaptation in Rubisco in Amaranthaceae. We further contrast the results thus obtained with those obtained under classical codon models based on the estimation of dN/dS. We find that the two classes of models tend to select distinct, although overlapping, sets of positions. This discrepancy in the results illustrates the conceptual difference between these models, while emphasizing the need to better discriminate between qualitatively different selective regimes, by using a broader class of codon models than those currently considered in molecular evolutionary studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→