MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033944182 · doi:10.1007/s00239-020-09951-3

Spatial Patterns of Gene Expression in Bacterial Genomes

2020· article· en· W3033944182 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniella F. Lato, G. Brian Golding

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Evolution · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGeneSinorhizobium melilotiGeneticsRepliconGenomeBacterial genome sizeGene expressionGene clusterBacillus subtilisGene dosageCircular bacterial chromosomeBacteriaMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gene expression in bacteria is a remarkably controlled and intricate process impacted by many factors. One such factor is the genomic position of a gene within a bacterial genome. Genes located near the origin of replication generally have a higher expression level, increased dosage, and are often more conserved than genes located farther from the origin of replication. The majority of the studies involved with these findings have only noted this phenomenon in a single gene or cluster of genes that was re-located to pre-determined positions within a bacterial genome. In this work, we look at the overall expression levels from eleven bacterial data sets from Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, Streptomyces, and Sinorhizobium meliloti. We have confirmed that gene expression tends to decrease when moving away from the origin of replication in majority of the replicons analysed in this study. This study sheds light on the impact of genomic location on molecular trends such as gene expression and highlights the importance of accounting for spatial trends in bacterial molecular analysis.

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)0.002
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molecular EvolutionSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207