MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002312612 · doi:10.1139/gen-2019-0165

Selection constraints determine preference for A/U-ending codons in <i>Taxus contorta</i>

2020· article· en· W3002312612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aasim Majeed, Harpreet Kaur, Pankaj Bhardwaj

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of Environment and Forests
KeywordsBiologyGymnospermCodon usage biasPinus contortaNatural selectionGeneticsGenePhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologySelection (genetic algorithm)GenomeEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unequal utilization of synonymous codons is a well-known phenomenon among living organisms. This phenomenon plays a major role in the enhancement of the accuracy and efficiency of translation. Gymnosperms are rarely paid attention in this aspect. Understanding the degree of and determining the forces influencing codon usage bias (CUB) in Taxus contorta, an endangered Himalayan gymnosperm, will prove useful in interpreting the evolutionary characteristics of this species. Using RNAseq data, 93 790 assembled transcripts were clustered into 32 701 unigenes. Around 13 061 full-length sequences were utilized for the analysis of CUB. Compositional properties showed that GC-content ranged from 28.76% to 65.22%, with an average value of 44.28%, suggesting an AT-rich genome. The mean effective number of codons (ENC) value revealed that CUB is not strong in T. contorta. The preferred codons tended to be A/U ending, whereas the avoided codons tended to be G/C ending. A P2 index of 0.54 and a Mutation Responsive Index (MRI) value of –0.02 in addition to the results revealed by the neutrality, ENC, and parity plots showed that natural selection is a predominating factor governing CUB. Mutational pressure, gene length, hydropathiciy, aromaticity, and nucleotide composition influence CUB weakly.

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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.245
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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207