MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320484700 · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36354-x

Amniotes co-opt intrinsic genetic instability to protect germ-line genome integrity

2023· article· en· W4320484700 on OpenAlexaff
Yu Sun, Hongxiao Cui, Chi Song, Jiafei Teng Shen, Xiaoyu Zhuo, Ruoqiao Huiyi Wang, Xiaohui Yu, Rudo Ndamba, Qian Mu, Hanwen Gu, Duolin Wang, Gayathri Guru Murthy, Pidong Li, Fan Liang, Lei Liu, Qing Tao, Ying Wang, Sara Orlowski, Qi Xu, Huaijun Zhou, Jarra Jagne, Ömer Gökçümen, Nick Anthony, Xin Zhao, Xin Zhiguo Li

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of General Medical SciencesUniversity of RochesterU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPiwi-interacting RNABiologyTransposable elementGenomeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike PIWI-interacting RNA (piRNA) in other species that mostly target transposable elements (TEs), >80% of piRNAs in adult mammalian testes lack obvious targets. However, mammalian piRNA sequences and piRNA-producing loci evolve more rapidly than the rest of the genome for unknown reasons. Here, through comparative studies of chickens, ducks, mice, and humans, as well as long-read nanopore sequencing on diverse chicken breeds, we find that piRNA loci across amniotes experience: (1) a high local mutation rate of structural variations (SVs, mutations ≥ 50 bp in size); (2) positive selection to suppress young and actively mobilizing TEs commencing at the pachytene stage of meiosis during germ cell development; and (3) negative selection to purge deleterious SV hotspots. Our results indicate that genetic instability at pachytene piRNA loci, while producing certain pathogenic SVs, also protects genome integrity against TE mobilization by driving the formation of rapid-evolving piRNA sequences.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207