MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977357038 · doi:10.1139/g06-121

Cytogenetic analysis of <i>Anaecypris hispanica</i> and its relationship with the paternal ancestor of the diploid-polyploid <i>Squalius alburnoides</i> complex

2006· article· en· W1977357038 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marta Gromicho, Maria M. Coelho, Maria Judite Alves, Maria João Collares‐Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
KeywordsBiologyPloidyPolyploidAncestorGenomeLineage (genetic)Phylogenetic treeGeneticsKaryotypeMost recent common ancestorEvolutionary biologyChromosomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The karyotype of the endangered fish Anaecypris hispanica was revisited using advanced cytogenetic techniques to elucidate its putative relationship with the paternal ancestor of the hybrid complex Squalius alburnoides and to clarify some of the recently described cytogenetic patterns of the complex. The results of chromomycin A3 and Ag staining, as well as fluorescent in situ hybridization with 28S and 5S rDNA and the (TTAGGG)n telomeric probes, were compared with the patterns observed in specimens of the all-male nonhybrid lineage of S. alburnoides complex, which is considered to reconstitute the nuclear genome of the probably extinct paternal ancestor. Several cytogenetic features observed in A. hispanica specimens were indeed shared by S. alburnoides nuclear nonhybrid males, supporting the hypothesis of a close evolutionary link between A. hispanica and the paternal ancestor of the complex. The genomic rearrangements involving 28S rDNA sites previously described in the S. alburnoides complex and in its maternal ancestor (S. pyrenaicus) were not detected in A. hispanica; they are, therefore, probably due to mechanisms related to hybridization and polyploidy.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207