MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242987318 · doi:10.1128/9781555819217.ch54

An Unexplored Diversity of Reverse Transcriptases in Bacteria

2015· book-chapter· en· W4242987318 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Zimmerly, Li Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueASM Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrotransposonReverse transcriptaseBiologyTelomeraseRous sarcoma virusPseudogeneLong terminal repeatGeneticsTelomerase reverse transcriptaseIntegraseVirologyGenomeDNAVirusGeneRNATransposable element

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reverse transcriptase (RT) is generally considered a eukaryotic enzyme because it is prevalent in eukaryotes and was first characterized from eukaryotic sources. Discovered in 1970 in the Rous Sarcoma and murine leukemia viruses (1,2), RT has since been studied for its central role in the replication of many eukaryotic genetic elements including retroviruses (e.g., HIV-1), pararetroviruses, hepadnaviruses, long terminal repeat (LTR), and non-LTR retroelements, Penelope-like elements, and telomerase (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10). Over the years, the accumulated studies of RT have painted a picture in which the enzyme functions primarily as the replicative enzyme of selfish DNAs (viruses, retrotransposons), while occasionally becoming domesticated to perform useful cellular functions. These functions include the maintenance of chromosomal ends (telomerase,DrosophilaHet-A elements) (10,11) and contributions to genomic change (both beneficial and deleterious) through pseudogene formation or other retroprocessing events (12,13,14,15).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.009

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASM Press eBooksSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207