Identification of Conflicting Selective Effects on Highly Expressed Genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many different selective effects on DNA and proteins influence the frequency of codons and amino acids in coding sequences. Selection is often stronger on highly expressed genes. Hence, by comparing high- and low-expression genes it is possible to distinguish the factors that are selected by evolution. It has been proposed that highly expressed genes should (i) preferentially use codons matching abundant tRNAs (translational efficiency), (ii) preferentially use amino acids with low cost of synthesis, (iii) be under stronger selection to maintain the required amino acid content, and (iv) be selected for translational robustness. These effects act simultaneously and can be contradictory. We develop a model that combines these factors, and use Akaike's Information Criterion for model selection. We consider pairs of paralogues that arose by whole-genome duplication in Saccharmyces cerevisiae. A codon-based model is used that includes asymmetric effects due to selection on highly expressed genes. The largest effect is translational efficiency, which is found to strongly influence synonymous, but not non-synonymous rates. Minimization of the cost of amino acid synthesis is implicated. However, when a more general measure of selection for amino acid usage is used, the cost minimization effect becomes redundant. Small effects that we attribute to selection for translational robustness can be identified as an improvement in the model fit on top of the effects of translational efficiency and amino acid usage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".