Peer Review #1 of "Non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions suggest that orthologs tend to keep their functions, while paralogs are a source of functional novelty (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthologs separate after lineages split from each other and paralogs after gene duplications.Thus, orthologs are expected to remain more functionally coherent across lineages, while paralogs have been proposed as a source of new functions.Because protein functional divergence follows from non-synonymous substitutions, we performed an analysis based on the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions (dN/dS), as proxy for functional divergence.We used five working definitions of orthology, including reciprocal best hits (RBH), among other definitions based on network analyses and clustering.The results showed that orthologs, by all definitions tested, had values of dN/dS noticeably lower than those of paralogs, suggesting that orthologs generally tend to be more functionally stable than paralogs.The differences in dN/dS ratios remained suggesting the functional stability of orthologs after eliminating gene comparisons with potential problems, such as genes with high codon usage biases, low coverage of either of the aligned sequences, or sequences with very high similarities.Separation by percent identity of the encoded proteins showed that the differences between the dN/dS ratios of orthologs and paralogs were more evident at high sequence identity, less so as identity dropped.The last results suggest that the differences between dN/dS ratios were partially related to differences in protein identity.However, they also suggested that paralogs undergo functional divergence relatively early after duplication.Our analyses indicate that choosing orthologs as probably functionally coherent remains the right approach in comparative genomics.
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 | 0.011 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.376 | 0.293 |
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".