MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025362379 · doi:10.1139/gen-2019-0151

Insertions of mitochondrial DNA into the nucleus—effects and role in cell evolution

2020· review· en· W3025362379 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. J. Puertas, M. González-Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMitochondrial DNAGeneticsGenomeGenome instabilityTelomereNon-Mendelian inheritanceNuclear DNASomatic cellHomologous recombinationGenome evolutionDNAEvolutionary biologyDNA damageGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review the insertion of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) fragments into nuclear DNA (NUMTS) as a general and ongoing process that has occurred many times during genome evolution. Fragments of mtDNA are generated during the lifetime of organisms in both somatic and germinal cells, by the production of reactive oxygen species in the mitochondria. The fragments are inserted into the nucleus during the double-strand breaks repair via the non-homologous end-joining machinery, followed by genomic instability, giving rise to the high variability observed in NUMT patterns among species, populations, or genotypes. Some de novo produced mtDNA insertions show harmful effects, being involved in human diseases, carcinogenesis, and ageing. NUMT generation is a non-stop process overpassing the Mendelian transmission. This parasitic property ensures their survival even against their harmful effects. The accumulation of mtDNA fragments mainly at pericentromeric and subtelomeric regions is important to understand the transmission and integration of NUMTs into the genomes. The possible effect of female meiotic drive for mtDNA insertions at centromeres remains to be studied. In spite of the harmful feature of NUMTs, they are important in cell evolution, representing a major source of genomic variation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations67
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicMitochondrial Function and PathologyFrench-language works237,207