MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582809553 · doi:10.1016/j.gene.2017.01.029

The fate of retrotransposed processed genes in Arabidopsis thaliana

2017· article· en· W2582809553 on OpenAlexafffund
Basma Abdelkarim, Vincent Maranda, Guy Drouin

Bibliographic record

VenueGene · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGeneGeneticsArabidopsis thalianaBrassica rapaGenomeArabidopsisNegative selectionCandidate gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Processed genes are functional genes that have arisen as a result of the retrotransposition of mRNA molecules. We found 6 genes that generated processed genes in the common ancestor of five Brassicaceae species (Arabidopsis thaliana, Arabidopsis lyrata, Capsella rubella, Brassica rapa and Thellungiella parvula). These processed genes have therefore been kept for at least 30millionyears. Analyses of the Ka/Ks ratio of these genes, and of those having given rise to them, show that they evolve relatively slowly and suggest that the processed genes maintained the same function as that of their parental gene. There is a significant negative correlation between the number of ESTs and transcripts produced and the Ka/Ks ratios of the parental genes but not of the processed genes. This suggests that selection has not yet adapted the selective pressure the processed genes experience to their expression level. However, the A. thaliana processed genes tend to be expressed in the same tissues as that of their parental genes. Furthermore, most have a CAATT-box, a TATA-box and are located about 1kb from another protein-coding gene. Altogether, our results suggest that the processed genes found in the A. thaliana genome have been kept to produce more of the same product, and in the same tissues, as that encoded by their parental gene.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207