Analysis of the Compositional Features and Codon Usage Pattern of Genes Involved in Human Autophagy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) genes, first recognized in yeast genome and subsequently identified in other species, including humans. Several other genes have been identified to be involved in the process of autophagy either directly or indirectly. Studying the codon usage bias (CUB) of genes is crucial for understanding their genome biology and molecular evolution. Here, we examined the usage pattern of nucleotide and synonymous codons and the influence of evolutionary forces in genes involved in human autophagy. The coding sequences (CDS) of the protein coding human autophagy genes were retrieved from the NCBI nucleotide database and analyzed using various web tools and software to understand their nucleotide composition and codon usage pattern. The effective number of codons (ENC) in all genes involved in human autophagy ranges between 33.26 and 54.6 with a mean value of 45.05, indicating an overall low CUB. The nucleotide composition analysis of the autophagy genes revealed that the genes were marginally rich in GC content that significantly influenced the codon usage pattern. The relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) revealed 3 over-represented and 10 under-represented codons. Both natural selection and mutational pressure were the key forces influencing the codon usage pattern of the genes involved in human autophagy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".