Segregation of microsatellite alleles and residual heterozygosity at single loci in homozygous androgenetic common carp (<i>Cyprinus carpio</i>L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty-three androgenetic progeny groups of common carp were analysed using 11 microsatellite markers to (i) verify the homozygous status of the 566 androgenetic individuals, (ii) analyse the microsatellite allele segregation, and (iii) study the possible association of microsatellite alleles with phenotypic traits. In total, 92% of the androgenetic individuals proved to be homozygous at all 11 loci. Forty-three of the 47 heterozygous individuals were heterozygous at a single locus only. This heterozygosity was probably due to DNA fragments caused by UV irradiation of the eggs. although the maternal origin of the fragments could not be proved beyond doubt. Screening with 11 microsatellites also revealed two linkage groups, a segregation distortion at two microsatellite loci, and the possible association of some microsatellites with mass, length, stress-related plasma cortisol levels, and basal plasma glucose levels. The success of the linkage and association study could be explained by a low recombination frequency due to high chiasma interference. This would imply a relatively short genetic map for common carp.
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".