G-quadruplex occurrence and conservation: more than just a question of guanine–cytosine content
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
Abstract G-quadruplexes are motifs found in DNA and RNA that can fold into tertiary structures. Until now, they have been studied experimentally mainly in humans and a few other species. Recently, predictions have been made with bacterial and archaeal genomes. Nevertheless, a global comparison of predicted G4s (pG4s) across and within the three living kingdoms has not been addressed. In this study, we aimed to predict G4s in genes and transcripts of all kingdoms of living organisms and investigated the differences in their distributions. The relation of the predictions with GC content was studied. It appears that GC content is not the only parameter impacting G4 predictions and abundance. The distribution of pG4 densities varies depending on the class of transcripts and the group of species. Indeed, we have observed that, in coding transcripts, there are more predicted G4s than expected for eukaryotes but not for archaea and bacteria, while in noncoding transcripts, there are as many or fewer predicted G4s in all species groups. We even noticed that some species with the same GC content presented different pG4 profiles. For instance, Leishmania major and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii both have 60% of GC content, but the former has a pG4 density of 0.07 and the latter 1.16.
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