MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389711852 · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43327-7

Competition and evolutionary selection among core regulatory motifs in gene expression control

2023· article· en· W4389711852 on OpenAlexfundno aff
András György

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityNew York University Abu Dhabi
KeywordsGene regulatory networkRegulatorBiologyPsychological repressionRegulation of gene expressionHuman evolutionary geneticsGeneSelection (genetic algorithm)Transcription factorGeneticsAutoregulationComputational biologyGene expressionComputer scienceGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gene products that are beneficial in one environment may become burdensome in another, prompting the emergence of diverse regulatory schemes that carry their own bioenergetic cost. By ensuring that regulators are only expressed when needed, we demonstrate that autoregulation generally offers an advantage in an environment combining mutation and time-varying selection. Whether positive or negative feedback emerges as dominant depends primarily on the demand for the target gene product, typically to ensure that the detrimental impact of inevitable mutations is minimized. While self-repression of the regulator curbs the spread of these loss-of-function mutations, self-activation instead facilitates their propagation. By analyzing the transcription network of multiple model organisms, we reveal that reduced bioenergetic cost may contribute to the preferential selection of autoregulation among transcription factors. Our results not only uncover how seemingly equivalent regulatory motifs have fundamentally different impact on population structure, growth dynamics, and evolutionary outcomes, but they can also be leveraged to promote the design of evolutionarily robust synthetic gene circuits.

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 score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207