MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967476630 · doi:10.1159/000078015

Cloning, characterization and physical mapping of three cervid satellite DNA families in the genome of the Formosan muntjac <i>(Muntiacus reevesi micrurus)</i>

2004· article· en· W1967476630 on OpenAlexaff
Cheng‐Chieh Lin, Pei-Yi Chiang, L.-J. Hsieh, Shu-Ju Liao, M.-C. Chao, Yun-Feng LI

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetic and Genome Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCloning (programming)GeneticsGenomeDNAZoologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to their high sequence diversity even among closely related species, satellite DNA sequences can be a useful molecular marker for phylogenetic and taxonomic analyses. To characterize the satellite DNA in the genome of a native muntjac species of Taiwan, the Formosan muntjac, satellite DNA clones representing three different cervid satellite DNA families from this species were isolated and analyzed. Genomic organization study of these satellite DNAs was also undertaken. Three Formosan muntjac satellite DNA clones were obtained and designated as FM-satI (1,391 bp), FM-satII (1,143 bp) and FM-satIV (1,103 bp), and found to share approximately 82, 81 and 98% sequence homology with the Chinese muntjac satellite I clone (C5), Indian muntjac satellite II clone (Mmv-0.7) and Chinese muntjac satellite IV clone (MR-1.0), respectively. These three satellite DNA families are organized in a pter<--FM-satII-FM-satIV-FM-satI-->qter orientation in the centromeric region with satII closely associated with the telomeric sequences. Satellite DNA sequence comparison, in combination with chromosome data concludes that the Formosan muntjac is likely a subspecies of M. reevesi, closely related to the Chinese muntjac. With the kinetochore satellite II DNA co-localizing with the telomeric sequences, the Formosan muntjac chromosomes could be truly telocentric.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetic and Genome ResearchSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207