Context matters: assessing the impacts of genomic background and ecology on microbial biosynthetic gene cluster evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Encoded within many microbial genomes, biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) underlie the synthesis of various secondary metabolites that often mediate ecologically important functions. Several studies and bioinformatics methods developed over the past decade have advanced our understanding of both microbial pangenomes and BGC evolution. In this minireview, we first highlight challenges in broad evolutionary analysis of BGCs, including delineation of BGC boundaries and clustering of BGCs across genomes. We further summarize key findings from microbial comparative genomics studies on BGC conservation across taxa and habitats and discuss the potential fitness effects of BGCs in different settings. Afterward, recent research showing the importance of genomic context on the production of secondary metabolites and the evolution of BGCs is highlighted. These studies draw parallels to recent, broader, investigations on gene-to-gene associations within microbial pangenomes. Finally, we describe mechanisms by which microbial pangenomes and BGCs evolve, ranging from the acquisition or origination of entire BGCs to micro-evolutionary trends of individual biosynthetic genes. An outlook on how expansions in the biosynthetic capabilities of some taxa might support theories that open pangenomes are the result of adaptive evolution is also discussed. We conclude with remarks about how future work leveraging longitudinal metagenomics across diverse ecosystems is likely to significantly improve our understanding on the evolution of microbial genomes and BGCs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".