MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coincidence, coevolution, or causation? DNA content, cellsize, and the C‐value enigma

2001· article· en· W4248450895 on OpenAlex
T. Ryan Gregory

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDNAEvolutionary biologyMutationGenomeNuclear DNAGeneticsCoevolutionGC-contentDNA sequencingGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Variation in DNA content has been largely ignored as a factor in evolution, particularly following the advent of sequence‐based approaches to genomic analysis. The significant genome size diversity among organisms (more than 200000‐fold among eukaryotes) bears no relationship to organismal complexity and both the origins and reasons for the clearly non‐random distribution of this variation remain unclear. Several theories have been proposed to explain this ‘C‐value enigma’ (heretofore known as the ‘C‐value paradox’), each of which can be described as either a ‘mutation pressure’ or ‘optimal DNA’ theory. Mutation pressure theories consider the large portion of non‐coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes as either ‘junk’ or ‘selfish’ DNA and are important primarily in considerations of the origin of secondary DNA. Optimal DNA theories differ from mutation pressure theories by emphasizing the strong link between DNA content and cell and nuclear volumes. While mutation pressure theories generally explain this association with cell size as coincidental, the nucleoskeletal theory proposes a coevolutionary interaction between nuclear and cell volume, with DNA content adjusted adaptively following shifts in cell size. Each of these approaches to the C‐value enigma is problematic for a variety of reasons and the preponderance of the available evidence instead favours the nucleotypic theory which postulates a causal link between bulk DNA amount and cell volume. Under this view, variation in DNA content is under direct selection via its impacts on cellular and organismal parameters. Until now, no satisfactory mechanism has been presented to explain this nucleotypic effect. However, recent advances in the study of cell cycle regulation suggest a possible ‘gene‐nucleus interaction model’ which may account for it. The present article provides a detailed review of the debate surrounding the C‐value enigma, the various theories proposed to explain it, and the evidence in favour of a causal connection between DNA content and cell size. In addition, a new model of nucleotypic influence is developed, along with suggestions for further empirical investigation. Finally, some evolutionary implications of genome size diversity are considered, and a broadening of the traditional ‘biological hierarchy’ is recommended.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.207 · 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