MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981531295 · doi:10.1139/g10-116

High resolution linkage maps of the model organism <i>Petunia</i> reveal substantial synteny decay with the related genome of tomato

2011· article· en· W1981531295 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eligio Bossolini, Ulrich Klahre, Anna Brandenburg, Didier Reinhardt, Cris Kuhlemeier

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetuniaBiologySyntenyGenomeGeneticsGene mappingMicrosatelliteGenetic diversityGeneAlleleChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two linkage maps were constructed for the model plant Petunia. Mapping populations were obtained by crossing the wild species Petunia axillaris subsp. axillaris with Petunia inflata, and Petunia axillaris subsp. parodii with Petunia exserta. Both maps cover the seven chromosomes of Petunia, and span 970 centimorgans (cM) and 700 cM of the genomes, respectively. In total, 207 markers were mapped. Of these, 28 are multilocus amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers and 179 are gene-derived markers. For the first time we report on the development and mapping of 83 Petunia microsatellites. The two maps retain the same marker order, but display significant differences of recombination frequencies at orthologous mapping intervals. A complex pattern of genomic rearrangements was detected with the related genome of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), indicating that synteny between Petunia and other Solanaceae crops has been considerably disrupted. The newly developed markers will facilitate the genetic characterization of mutants and ecological studies on genetic diversity and speciation within the genus Petunia. The maps will provide a powerful tool to link genetic and genomic information and will be useful to support sequence assembly of the Petunia genome.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207