Advances in understanding the evolution of fungal genome architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversity within the fungal kingdom is evident from the wide range of morphologies fungi display as well as the various ecological roles and industrial purposes they serve. Technological advances, particularly in long-read sequencing, coupled with the increasing efficiency and decreasing costs across sequencing platforms have enabled robust characterization of fungal genomes. These sequencing efforts continue to reveal the rampant diversity in fungi at the genome level. Here, we discuss studies that have furthered our understanding of fungal genetic diversity and genomic evolution. These studies revealed the presence of both small-scale and large-scale genomic changes. In fungi, research has recently focused on many small-scale changes, such as how hypermutation and allelic transmission impact genome evolution as well as how and why a few specific genomic regions are more susceptible to rapid evolution than others. High-throughput sequencing of a diverse set of fungal genomes has also illuminated the frequency, mechanisms, and impacts of large-scale changes, which include chromosome structural variation and changes in chromosome number, such as aneuploidy, polyploidy, and the presence of supernumerary chromosomes. The studies discussed herein have provided great insight into how the architecture of the fungal genome varies within species and across the kingdom and how modern fungi may have evolved from the last common fungal ancestor and might also pave the way for understanding how genomic diversity has evolved in all domains of life.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | medium |
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".