Orthology and Paralogy Relationships at Transcript Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eukaryotic genes undergo a mechanism called alternative processing, resulting in transcriptome diversity by allowing the production of multiple distinct transcripts from a gene. More than half of human genes are affected, and the resulting transcripts are highly conserved among orthologous genes of distinct species. In this work, we present the definition of orthology and paralogy between transcripts of homologous genes, together with an algorithm to compute clusters of conserved orthologous and paralogous transcripts. Gene-level homology relationships are utilized to define various types of homology relationships between transcripts originating from the same ancestral transcript. A Reciprocal Best Hits approach is employed to infer clusters of isoorthologous and recent paralogous transcripts. We applied this method to transcripts from simulated gene families as well as real gene families from the Ensembl-Compara database. The results are consistent with those from previous studies that compared orthologous gene transcripts. Furthermore, our findings provide evidence that searching for conserved transcripts between homologous genes, beyond the scope of orthologous genes, is likely to yield valuable information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".