Environment and taxonomy shape the genomic signature of prokaryotic extremophiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides comprehensive quantitative evidence suggesting that adaptations to extreme temperatures and pH imprint a discernible environmental component in the genomic signature of microbial extremophiles. Both supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms were used to analyze genomic signatures, each computed as the k-mer frequency vector of a 500 kbp DNA fragment arbitrarily selected to represent a genome. Computational experiments classified/clustered genomic signatures extracted from a curated dataset of [Formula: see text] extremophile (temperature, pH) bacteria and archaea genomes, at multiple scales of analysis, [Formula: see text]. The supervised learning resulted in high accuracies for taxonomic classifications at [Formula: see text], and medium to medium-high accuracies for environment category classifications of the same datasets at [Formula: see text]. For [Formula: see text], our findings were largely consistent with amino acid compositional biases and codon usage patterns in coding regions, previously attributed to extreme environment adaptations. The unsupervised learning of unlabelled sequences identified several exemplars of hyperthermophilic organisms with large similarities in their genomic signatures, in spite of belonging to different domains in the Tree of Life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".