MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Distribution, Evolution, and Roles of Gene Transfer Agents in Prokaryotic Genetic Exchange

2017· review· en· W2588754019 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew S. Lang, Alexander B. Westbye, J. Thomas Beatty

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Virology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyHorizontal gene transferGeneGenomeRhodobacterGeneticsOrganismBacteriophageEvolutionary biologyEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diverse prokaryotes produce gene transfer agents (GTAs), which are bacteriophage-like particles that exclusively package pieces of the producing cell's genome and transfer them to other cells. There are clear evolutionary connections between GTAs and phages, but GTAs have properties that lead us to suggest they are more than simply defective phages and instead provide a selective advantage for the producing organisms. The five types of currently known GTAs are genetically distinct, indicating multiple instances of convergent evolution. GTA production can be regulated by the producing organism and coordinated to coincide with development of the capability to receive DNA from GTAs. Recent discoveries of the genetic basis of GTA production in the bacterium Rhodobacter capsulatus and characterization of novel phages that possess homologs of this GTA's structural and regulatory genes have provided important new connections among these elements and highlight the tangled evolutionary relationships within the phageome.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations120
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of VirologySame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207