MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615785007 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177606

Mitochondrial genome evolution in Alismatales: Size reduction and extensive loss of ribosomal protein genes

2017· article· en· W2615785007 on OpenAlexafffund
Gitte Petersen, Argelia Cuenca, Athanasios Zervas, Gregory T. Ross, Sean W. Graham, Craig F. Barrett, Jerrold I. Davis, Ole Seberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRijksuniversiteit GroningenNatur og Univers, Det Frie ForskningsrådDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyMitochondrial DNAGeneticsGenomeRibosomal RNAGenome sizeGeneIntronTransfer RNAEvolutionary biologyRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The order Alismatales is a hotspot for evolution of plant mitochondrial genomes characterized by remarkable differences in genome size, substitution rates, RNA editing, retrotranscription, gene loss and intron loss. Here we have sequenced the complete mitogenomes of Zostera marina and Stratiotes aloides, which together with previously sequenced mitogenomes from Butomus and Spirodela, provide new evolutionary evidence of genome size reduction, gene loss and transfer to the nucleus. The Zostera mitogenome includes a large portion of DNA transferred from the plastome, yet it is the smallest known mitogenome from a non-parasitic plant. Using a broad sample of the Alismatales, the evolutionary history of ribosomal protein gene loss is analyzed. In Zostera almost all ribosomal protein genes are lost from the mitogenome, but only some can be found in the nucleus.

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 score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations77
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207