MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203098156 · doi:10.1093/gbe/evab228

DNA Transposon Expansion is Associated with Genome Size Increase in Mudminnows

2021· article· en· W3203098156 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Lehmann, Aleš Kovařı́k, Konrad Ocalewicz, Lech Kirtiklis, Andrea Zuccolo, Jesper Tegnér, Josef Wanzenböck, Louis Bernatchez, Dunja K. Lamatsch, Radka Symonová

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Biology and Evolution · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTransposable elementGenome sizeGenomeDNADNA Transposable ElementsGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genome sizes of eukaryotic organisms vary substantially, with whole-genome duplications (WGD) and transposable element expansion acting as main drivers for rapid genome size increase. The two North American mudminnows, Umbra limi and Umbra pygmaea, feature genomes about twice the size of their sister lineage Esocidae (e.g., pikes and pickerels). However, it is unknown whether all Umbra species share this genome expansion and which causal mechanisms drive this expansion. Using flow cytometry, we find that the genome of the European mudminnow is expanded similarly to both North American species, ranging between 4.5 and 5.4 pg per diploid nucleus. Observed blocks of interstitially located telomeric repeats in U. limi suggest frequent Robertsonian rearrangements in its history. Comparative analyses of transcriptome and genome assemblies show that the genome expansion in Umbra is driven by the expansion of DNA transposon and unclassified repeat sequences without WGD. Furthermore, we find a substantial ongoing expansion of repeat sequences in the Alaska blackfish Dallia pectoralis, the closest relative to the family Umbridae, which might mark the beginning of a similar genome expansion. Our study suggests that the genome expansion in mudminnows, driven mainly by transposon expansion, but not WGD, occurred before the separation into the American and European lineage.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome Biology and EvolutionSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207