MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607327662 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01144-1

Divergent copies of the large inverted repeat in the chloroplast genomes of ulvophycean green algae

2017· article· en· W2607327662 on OpenAlexafffund
Monique Turmel, Christian Otis, Claude Lemieux

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGenomeBiologyInverted repeatUlvophyceaeGeneticsGeneChloroplastChlorophytaAlgaeBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chloroplast genomes of many algae and almost all land plants carry two identical copies of a large inverted repeat (IR) sequence that can pair for flip-flop recombination and undergo expansion/contraction. Although the IR has been lost multiple times during the evolution of the green algae, the underlying mechanisms are still largely unknown. A recent comparison of IR-lacking and IR-containing chloroplast genomes of chlorophytes from the Ulvophyceae (Ulotrichales) suggested that differential elimination of genes from the IR copies might lead to IR loss. To gain deeper insights into the evolutionary history of the chloroplast genome in the Ulvophyceae, we analyzed the genomes of Ignatius tetrasporus and Pseudocharacium americanum (Ignatiales, an order not previously sampled), Dangemannia microcystis (Oltmannsiellopsidales), Pseudoneochloris marina (Ulvales) and also Chamaetrichon capsulatum and Trichosarcina mucosa (Ulotrichales). Our comparison of these six chloroplast genomes with those previously reported for nine ulvophyceans revealed unsuspected variability. All newly examined genomes feature an IR, but remarkably, the copies of the IR present in the Ignatiales, Pseudoneochloris, and Chamaetrichon diverge in sequence, with the tRNA genes from the rRNA operon missing in one IR copy. The implications of this unprecedented finding for the mechanism of IR loss and flip-flop recombination are discussed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations95
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207