Intra-specific comparison of mitochondrial genomes reveals host gene fragment exchange via intron mobility in Tremella fuciformis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mitochondrial genomic sequences are known to be variable. Comparative analyses of mitochondrial genomes can reveal the nature and extent of their variation. RESULTS: Draft mitochondrial genomes of 16 Tremella fuciformis isolates (TF01-TF16) were assembled from Illumina and PacBio sequencing data. Mitochondrial DNA contigs were extracted and assembled into complete circular molecules, ranging from 35,104 bp to 49,044 bp in size. All mtDNAs contained the same set of 41 conserved genes with identical gene order. Comparative analyses revealed that introns and intergenic regions were variable, whereas genic regions (including coding sequences, tRNA, and rRNA genes) were conserved. Among 24 introns detected, 11 were in protein-coding genes, 3 in tRNA genes, and the other 10 in rRNA genes. In addition, two mobile fragments were found in intergenic regions. Interestingly, six introns containing N-terminal duplication of the host genes were found in five conserved protein-coding gene sequences. Comparison of genes with and without these introns gave rise to the following proposed model: gene fragment exchange with other species can occur via gain or loss of introns with N-terminal duplication of the host genes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a novel mechanism of fungal mitochondrial gene evolution: partial foreign gene replacement though intron mobility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".