MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4306810319 · doi:10.26508/lsa.202201434

Replication-associated inversions are the dominant form of bacterial chromosome structural variation

2022· article· en· W4306810319 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew D’Iorio, Ken Dewar

Bibliographic record

VenueLife Science Alliance · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersGenome CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsDnaABiologyOrigin of replicationGeneticsReplication timingChromosomal inversionChromosomeDNA replicationGenomeStructural variationReplication (statistics)Circular bacterial chromosomeEvolutionary biologyComputational biologyDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Structural arrangement of a bacterial chromosome varies widely between closely related species and can result in significant phenotypic outcomes. The appearance of large-scale chromosomal inversions that are symmetric relative to the dnaA gene (usually linked to oriC , the origin of replication) has been previously observed; however, the overall prevalence of replication-associated structural rearrangements (RASRs) in bacteria and their causal mechanisms are currently unknown. The decreased cost of full-length genome sequencing has led to a rapidly growing collection of complete genomes spanning multiple different clades, therefore allowing an opportunity to examine chromosomal inversions in the context of species spanning diverse phylogenetic classifications. Here we systematically identify the locations of large, chromosomal inversions in species with multiple complete sequenced genomes using the Refseq and Genbank NCBI databases to investigate potential mediating biological mechanisms. Out of the 239 species available with 10 or more complete genomes, 206 contained sequences with at least one large (≥50Kb) inversion in their set of within-species sequence comparisons. We observed 73.4% of the 127,161 large inversions were centered at a point within 10% proportionate distance to the annotated dnaA gene, which is often nearby the origin of replication. Inversions offset from the annotated dnaA sequence were generally confirmed to be centered on the actual origin of replication. Equidistant breakpoints from the replication origin and prevalence of flanking repeats provide evidence that the breaks that are formed during the replication process are then repaired to opposing positions. We also found a strong relationship between the later stages of replication and the range in variation of distance from symmetry, suggesting that replication fork arrest may be a mechanistic cause for the asymmetry in some inversions.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLife Science Alliance→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→