G-quadruplex propensity in <i>H. neanderthalensis</i>, <i>H. sapiens</i> and Denisovans mitochondrial genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current methods of processing archaeological samples combined with advances in sequencing methods lead to disclosure of a large part of H. neanderthalensis and Denisovans genetic information. It is hardly surprising that the genome variability between modern humans, Denisovans and H. neanderthalensis is relatively limited. Genomic studies may provide insight on the metabolism of extinct human species or lineages. Detailed analysis of G-quadruplex sequences in H. neanderthalensis and Denisovans mitochondrial DNA showed us interesting features. Relatively similar patterns in mitochondrial DNA are found compared to modern humans, with one notable exception for H. neanderthalensis. An interesting difference between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens corresponds to a motif found in the D-loop region of mtDNA, which is responsible for mitochondrial DNA replication. This area is directly responsible for the number of mitochondria and consequently for the efficient energy metabolism of cell. H. neanderthalensis harbor a long uninterrupted run of guanines in this region, which may cause problems for replication, in contrast with H. sapiens, for which this run is generally shorter and interrupted. One may propose that the predominant H. sapiens motif provided a selective advantage for modern humans regarding mtDNA replication and function.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".