MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767980883 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0465

The impact of recombination on human mutation load and disease

2017· review· en· W2767980883 on OpenAlexafffund
Isabel Alves, Armande Ang Houle, Julie Hussin, Philip Awadalla

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoInstitute of Cancer ResearchOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceLinacre College, University of Oxford
KeywordsBiologyHomologous recombinationRecombinationGeneticsMutation AccumulationMeiosisMutationChromosome engineeringEctopic recombinationGene conversionGenomeStructural variationGeneCopy-number variationDNA repairFLP-FRT recombinationGenetic recombination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recombination promotes genomic integrity among cells and tissues through double-strand break repair, and is critical for gamete formation and fertility through a strict regulation of the molecular mechanisms associated with proper chromosomal disjunction. In humans, congenital defects and recurrent structural abnormalities can be attributed to aberrant meiotic recombination. Moreover, mutations affecting genes involved in recombination pathways are directly linked to pathologies including infertility and cancer. Recombination is among the most prominent mechanism shaping genome variation, and is associated with not only the structuring of genomic variability, but is also tightly linked with the purging of deleterious mutations from populations. Together, these observations highlight the multiple roles of recombination in human genetics: its ability to act as a major force of evolution, its molecular potential to maintain genome repair and integrity in cell division and its mutagenic cost impacting disease evolution.This article is part of the themed issue 'Evolutionary causes and consequences of recombination rate variation in sexual organisms'.

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations41
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207