Refining Mitochondrial Intron Classification With ERPIN: Identification Based on Conservation of Sequence Plus Secondary Structure Motifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitochondrial genomes-in particular those of fungi-often encode genes with a large number of Group I and Group II introns that are conserved at both the sequence and the RNA structure level. They provide a rich resource for the investigation of intron and gene structure, self- and protein-guided splicing mechanisms, and intron evolution. Yet, the degree of sequence conservation of introns is limited, and the primary sequence differs considerably among the distinct intron sub-groups. It makes intron identification, classification, structural modeling, and the inference of gene models a most challenging and error-prone task-frequently passed on to an "expert" for manual intervention. To reduce the need for manual curation of intron structures and mitochondrial gene models, computational methods using ERPIN sequence profiles were initially developed in 2007. Here we present a refinement of search models and alignments using the now abundant publicly available fungal mtDNA sequences. In addition, we have tested in how far members of the originally proposed sub-groups are clearly distinguished and validated by our computational approach. We confirm clearly distinct mitochondrial Group I sub-groups IA1, IA3, IB3, IC1, IC2, and ID. Yet, IB1, IB2, and IB4 ERPIN models are overlapping substantially in predictions, and are therefore combined and reported as IB. We have further explored the conversion of our ERPIN profiles into covariance models (CM). Current limitations and prospects of the CM approach will be discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, 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".