Genome size evolution and polyploidy in the Daphnia pulex complex (Cladocera: Daphniidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome size was estimated in 49 clones of the Daphnia pulex complex from temperate and subarctic locations using flow cytometry and microsatellite DNA analyses. Significant genome size differences were found in diploid species belonging to the two genetically distinct groups (the pulicaria and the tenebrosa groups), with clones from the tenebrosa group having genome sizes 22% larger than those in the pulicaria group. Combined flow cytometry and microsatellite DNA analyses revealed that nearly all polyploid clones in the D. pulex complex are triploid and not tetraploid, as was previously suggested. Sequencing analyses of the ND5 gene to position clones in their respective clades within the D. pulex complex have uncovered three triploid clones of Daphnia middendorffiana with a D. pulex maternal parent. This result was unexpected because Daphnia pulicaria has always been identified as the maternal parent of these hybrid polyploid clones. Triploid clones likely owe their origins to interactions between sexual and asexual populations. Further interactions in the tenebrosa group have generated tetraploid clones but these events have been rare. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 97, 68–79.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".