Success of alignment-free oligonucleotide (k-mer) analysis confirms relative importance of genomes not genes in speciation and phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The utility of DNA sequence substrings (k-mers) in alignment-free phylogenetic classification, including that of bacteria and viruses, is increasingly recognized. However, its biological basis eludes many 21st century practitioners. A path from the 19th century recognition of the informational basis of heredity to the modern era can be discerned. Crick’s DNA ‘unpairing postulate’ predicted that recombinational pairing of homologous DNAs during meiosis would be mediated by short k-mers in the loops of stem-loop structures extruded from classical duplex helices. The complementary ‘kissing’ duplex loops – like tRNA anticodon–codon k-mer duplexes – would seed a more extensive pairing that would then extend until limited by lack of homology or other factors. Indeed, this became the principle behind alignment-based methods that assessed similarity by degree of DNA–DNA reassociation in vitro. These are now seen as less sensitive than alignment-free methods that are closely consistent, both theoretically and mechanistically, with chromosomal anti-recombination models for the initiation of divergence into new species. The analytical power of k-mer differences supports the theses that evolutionary advance sometimes serves the needs of nucleic acids (genomes) rather than proteins (genes), and that such differences can play a role in early speciation events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".