MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Organellar genomes of white spruce (<i>Picea glauca</i>): assembly and annotation

2016· article· en· W2585214847 on OpenAlexaff
Shaun D. Jackman, René L. Warren, Ewan A. Gibb, Benjamin P. Vandervalk, Hamid Mohamadi, Justin Chu, Anthony Raymond, Stephen Pleasance, Robin Coope, Mark R. Wildung, Carol Ritland, Jean Bousquet, Steven J.M. Jones, Jöerg Bohlmann, İnanç Birol

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty of 1000 Research Ltd · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomeBiologyPlastidGeneMitochondrial DNAGeneticsSequence assemblyShotgun sequencingNuclear geneRibosomal RNAShotgunRNA editingRNAComputational biologyTranscriptomeGene expressionChloroplast

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genome sequences of the plastid and mitochondrion of white spruce (Picea glauca) were assembled from whole-genome shotgun sequencing data using ABySS. The sequencing data contained reads from both the nuclear and organellar genomes, and reads of the organellar genomes were abundant in the data as each cell harbors hundreds of mitochondria and plastids. Hence, assembly of the 123-kb plastid and 5.9-Mb mitochondrial genomes were accomplished by analyzing data sets primarily representing low coverage of the nuclear genome. The assembled organellar genomes were annotated for their coding genes, ribosomal RNA, and transfer RNA. Transcript abundances of the mitochondrial genes were quantified in three developmental tissues and five mature tissues using data from RNA-seq experiments. C-to-U RNA editing was observed in the majority of mitochondrial genes, and in four genes, editing events were noted to modify ACG codons to create cryptic AUG start codons. The informatics methodology presented in this study should prove useful to assemble organellar genomes of other plant species using whole-genome shotgun sequencing data.

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)0.001
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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty of 1000 Research LtdSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207