MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557863540 · doi:10.3390/ijms17121991

Pseudogenes and Their Genome-Wide Prediction in Plants

2016· review· en· W2557863540 on OpenAlexafffund
Jin Xiao, Manoj K. Sekhwal, Pingchuan Li, Raja Ragupathy, Sylvie Cloutier, Xiue Wang, Frank M. You

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsPseudogeneGenomeBiologyGeneticsGeneGene duplicationComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pseudogenes are paralogs generated from ancestral functional genes (parents) during genome evolution, which contain critical defects in their sequences, such as lacking a promoter, having a premature stop codon or frameshift mutations. Generally, pseudogenes are functionless, but recent evidence demonstrates that some of them have potential roles in regulation. The majority of pseudogenes are generated from functional progenitor genes either by gene duplication (duplicated pseudogenes) or retro-transposition (processed pseudogenes). Pseudogenes are primarily identified by comparison to their parent genes. Bioinformatics tools for pseudogene prediction have been developed, among which PseudoPipe, PSF and Shiu’s pipeline are publicly available. We compared these three tools using the well-annotated Arabidopsis thaliana genome and its known 924 pseudogenes as a test data set. PseudoPipe and Shiu’s pipeline identified ~80% of A. thaliana pseudogenes, of which 94% were shared, while PSF failed to generate adequate results. A need for improvement of the bioinformatics tools for pseudogene prediction accuracy in plant genomes was thus identified, with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of genome annotation in plants.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations52
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207