Accurate prediction of orthologs in the presence of divergence after duplication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: When gene duplication occurs, one of the copies may become free of selective pressure and evolve at an accelerated pace. This has important consequences on the prediction of orthology relationships, since two orthologous genes separated by divergence after duplication may differ in both sequence and function. In this work, we make the distinction between the primary orthologs, which have not been affected by accelerated mutation rates on their evolutionary path, and the secondary orthologs, which have. Similarity-based prediction methods will tend to miss secondary orthologs, whereas phylogeny-based methods cannot separate primary and secondary orthologs. However, both types of orthology have applications in important areas such as gene function prediction and phylogenetic reconstruction, motivating the need for methods that can distinguish the two types. Results: We formalize the notion of divergence after duplication and provide a theoretical basis for the inference of primary and secondary orthologs. We then put these ideas to practice with the Hybrid Prediction of Paralogs and Orthologs (HyPPO) framework, which combines ideas from both similarity and phylogeny approaches. We apply our method to simulated and empirical datasets and show that we achieve superior accuracy in predicting primary orthologs, secondary orthologs and paralogs. Availability and implementation: HyPPO is a modular framework with a core developed in Python and is provided with a variety of C++ modules. The source code is available at https://github.com/manuellafond/HyPPO. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".