MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008651780 · doi:10.1101/2020.02.18.954784

Tracing animal genomic evolution with the chromosomal-level assembly of the freshwater sponge <i>Ephydatia muelleri</i>

2020· preprint· en· W3008651780 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEuropean CommissionVillum FondenNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSyntenyGenomeAdaptation (eye)EpigenomeGenomicsModel organismTransposable elementGenome evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The genomes of non-bilaterian metazoans are key to understanding the molecular basis of early animal evolution. However, a full comprehension of how animal-specific traits such as nervous systems arose is hindered by the scarcity and fragmented nature of genomes from key taxa, such as Porifera. Ephydatia muelleri is a freshwater sponge found across the northern hemisphere. Here we present its 326 Mb genome, assembled to high contiguity (N50: 9.88 Mb) with 23 chromosomes on 24 scaffolds. Our analyses reveal a metazoan-typical genome architecture, with highly shared synteny across Metazoa, and suggest that adaptation to the extreme temperatures and conditions found in freshwater often involves gene duplication. The pancontinental distribution and ready laboratory culture of E. muelleri make this a highly practical model system, which with RNAseq, DNA methylation and bacterial amplicon data spanning its development and range allows exploration of genomic changes both within sponges and in early animal evolution.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207