MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294433627 · doi:10.1093/ve/veac084

Monotreme-specific conserved putative proteins derived from retroviral reverse transcriptase

2022· article· en· W4294433627 on OpenAlexfundno aff
K. Kitao, Takayuki Miyazawa, So Nakagawa

Bibliographic record

VenueVirus Evolution · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsReverse transcriptaseMonotremeBiologyComputational biologyGeneticsRNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have played an essential role in the evolution of mammals. ERV-derived genes are reported in the therians, many of which are involved in placental development; however, the contribution of the ERV-derived genes in monotremes, which are oviparous mammals, remains to be uncovered. Here, we conducted a comprehensive search for possible ERV-derived genes in platypus and echidna genomes and identified three reverse transcriptase-like genes named RTOM1, RTOM2, and RTOM3 clustered in the GRIP2 intron. Comparative genomic analyses revealed that RTOM1, RTOM2, and RTOM3 are strongly conserved and are under purifying selection between these species. These could be generated by tandem duplications before the divergence of platypus and echidna. All RTOM transcripts were specifically expressed in the testis, possibly suggesting their physiological importance. This is the first study reporting monotreme-specific de novo gene candidates derived from ERVs, which provides new insights into the unique evolution of monotremes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirus EvolutionSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207