MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609357430 · doi:10.1093/gbe/evx086

Mitochondrial Genome Evolution and a Novel RNA Editing System in Deep-Branching Heteroloboseids

2017· article· en· W2609357430 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiwon Yang, Tommy Harding, Ryoma Kamikawa, Alastair G. B. Simpson, Andrew J. Roger

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Biology and Evolution · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyRNA editingGenomeGeneticsMitochondrial DNAGeneRibosomal RNALineage (genetic)RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discoba (Excavata) is an evolutionarily important group of eukaryotes that includes Jakobida, with the most bacterial-like mitochondrial genomes known, and Euglenozoa, many of which have extensively fragmented mitochondrial genomes. However, little is known about the mitochondrial genomes of Heterolobosea, the third main group of Discoba. Here, we studied two heteroloboseids-an undescribed amoeba "BB2" and Pharyngomonas kirbyi. Phylogenomic analysis revealed that they form a clade that is a sister group to all other Heterolobosea. We characterized the mitochondrial genomes of BB2 and P. kirbyi, which encoded 44 and 48 putative protein-coding genes respectively. Their gene contents were similar to that of Naegleria. In BB2, mitochondrially encoded RNAs were heavily edited, with ∼500 mononucleotide insertion events, mostly guanosines. These insertions always have the same identity as an adjacent nucleotide. Editing occurs in all ribosomal RNAs and protein-coding transcripts except one, and half of the transfer RNAs. Analysis of Illumina deep-sequencing data suggested that this RNA editing is very accurate and efficient, and most likely co-transcriptional. The dissimilarity of this editing process to other RNA editing phenomena in discobids, as well as its apparent absence in P. kirbyi, suggest that this remarkably extensive system of insertional editing evolved independently in the BB2 lineage, after its divergence from the P. kirbyi lineage.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207