Can Green Algal Plastid Genome Size Be Explained by DNA Repair Mechanisms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major finding in organelle biology over the past decade is that land plant mitochondrial genomes, which are the largest among eukaryotes, can have a "Jekyll and Hyde" mutational pattern: low for synonymous sites, high for intergenic ones. This has led to the theory that double-strand breaks (DSBs) in the intergenic DNA of plant mitogenomes are repaired by inaccurate mechanisms, such as break-induced replication, which can result in large insertions and, thus, could explain why these genomes are so prone to expansion. But how universal is this theory? Can it apply to other giant organelle DNAs, such as the massive plastid DNAs (ptDNAs) of chlamydomonadalean green algae? Indeed, it can. Analysis of the expanded plastomes from two distinct isolates of the unicellular chlamydomonadalean Chlorosarcinopsis eremi uncovered exceptionally low rates of synonymous substitution in the coding regions but high substitution rates, including frequent indels, in the noncoding ptDNA, mirroring the trend from land plant mitogenomes. Remarkably, nearly all of the substitutions and indels identified in the noncoding ptDNA of C. eremi occur adjacent to or within short inverted palindromic repeats, suggesting that these elements are mutational hotspots. Building upon earlier studies, I propose that these palindromic repeats are predisposed to DSBs and that error-prone repair of these breaks is contributing to genomic expansion. Short palindromic repeats are a common theme among bloated plastomes, including the largest one on record, meaning that these data could have wide-reaching implications for our understanding of ptDNA expansion.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".