MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1856174195 · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-6-54

Comparative mapping of expressed sequence tags containing microsatellites in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

2005· article· en· W1856174195 on OpenAlexaff
Caird E. Rexroad, María Fernanda Rodríguez, Issa Coulibaly, Karim Gharbi, Roy G. Danzmann, Jenefer DeKoning, Ruth Phillips, Yniv Palti

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Genomics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRainbow troutMicrosatelliteGeneticsGenomeComparative genomicsExpressed sequence tagComputational biologyGenomicsTroutIn silicoGenetic markerGene mappingEvolutionary biologyGeneChromosomeFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Comparative genomics, through the integration of genetic maps from species of interest with whole genome sequences of other species, will facilitate the identification of genes affecting phenotypes of interest. The development of microsatellite markers from expressed sequence tags will serve to increase marker densities on current salmonid genetic maps and initiate in silico comparative maps with species whose genomes have been fully sequenced. RESULTS: Eighty-nine polymorphic microsatellite markers were generated for rainbow trout of which at least 74 amplify in other salmonids. Fifty-five have been associated with functional annotation and 30 were mapped on existing genetic maps. Homologous sequences were identified for 20 of the EST containing microsatellites to identify comparative assignments within the tetraodon, mouse, and/or human genomes. CONCLUSION: The addition of microsatellite markers constructed from expressed sequence tag data will facilitate the development of high-density genetic maps for rainbow trout and comparative maps with other salmonids and better studied species.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations61
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GenomicsSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207