MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4324378600 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2678762/v1

Relative Timing Information and Orthology inEvolutionary Scenarios

2023· preprint· en· W4324378600 on OpenAlexafffund
David Schaller, Tom Hartmann, Manuel Lafond, Peter F. Stadler, Nicolas Wieseke, Marc Hellmuth

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersStockholms UniversitetDeutsches Zentrum für integrative Biodiversitätsforschung Halle-Jena-LeipzigUniversität LeipzigUniversität WienMax-Planck-Institut für Mathematik in den NaturwissenschaftenDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftSanta Fe InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsCombinatoricsExtant taxonVertex (graph theory)GraphTime complexityBiologyMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Evolutionary scenarios describing the evolution of a family of genes within a collection of species comprise the mapping of the vertices of a gene tree T to vertices and edges of a species tree S. The relative timing of the last common ancestors of two extant genes (leaves of T) and the last common ancestors of the two species (leaves of S) in which they reside is indicative of horizontal gene transfers (HGT) and ancient duplications. Orthologous gene pairs, on the other hand, require that their last common ancestors coincides with a corresponding speciation event. The relative timing information of gene and species divergences is captured by three colored graphs that have the extant genes as vertices and the species in which the genes are found as vertex colors: the equal-divergence-time (EDT) graph, the later-divergence-time (LDT) graph and the prior-divergence-time (PDT) graph, which together form an edge partition of the complete graph. Results: Here we give a complete characterization in terms of informative and forbidden triples that can be read off the three graphs and provide a polynomial time algorithm for constructing an evolutionary scenario that explains the graphs, provided such a scenario exists. While both LDT and PDT graphs are cographs, this is not true for the EDT graph in general. We show that every EDT graph is perfect. While the information about LDT and PDT graphs is necessary to recognize EDT graphs in polynomial-time for general scenarios, this extra information can be dropped in the HGT-free case. However, recognition of EDT graphs without knowledge of putative LDT and PDT graphs is NP-complete for general scenarios. In contrast, PDT graphs can be recognized in polynomial-time. We finally connect the EDT graph to the alternative definitions of orthology that have been proposed for scenarios with horizontal gene transfer. With one exception, the corresponding graphs are shown to be colored cographs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→