Predicting the Evolution of Syntenies—An Algorithmic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Syntenies are genomic segments of consecutive genes identified by a certain conservation in gene content and order. The notion of conservation may vary from one definition to another, the more constrained requiring identical gene contents and gene orders, while more relaxed definitions just require a certain similarity in gene content, and not necessarily in the same order. Regardless of the way they are identified, the goal is to characterize homologous genomic regions, i.e., regions deriving from a common ancestral region, reflecting a certain gene co-evolution that can enlighten important functional properties. In addition of being able to identify them, it is also necessary to infer the evolutionary history that has led from the ancestral segment to the extant ones. In this field, most algorithmic studies address the problem of inferring rearrangement scenarios explaining the disruption in gene order between segments with the same gene content, some of them extending the evolutionary model to gene insertion and deletion. However, syntenies also evolve through other events modifying their content in genes, such as duplications, losses or horizontal gene transfers, i.e., the movement of genes from one species to another. Although the reconciliation approach between a gene tree and a species tree addresses the problem of inferring such events for single-gene families, little effort has been dedicated to the generalization to segmental events and to syntenies. This paper reviews some of the main algorithmic methods for inferring ancestral syntenies and focus on those integrating both gene orders and gene trees.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it