Comparative analysis of the<i>Brassica oleracea</i>genetic map and the<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We further investigated genome macrosynteny for Brassica species and Arabidopsis thaliana. This work aimed at comparative map construction for B. oleracea and A. thaliana chromosomes based on 160 known A. thaliana probes: 147 expressed sequence tags (ESTs) and 13 full-length cDNA clones. Based on an in silico study of the A. thaliana genome, most of the selected ESTs (83%) represented unique or low-copy genes. We identified conserved segments by the visual inspection of comparative data with a priori assumptions, and established their significance with the LineUp algorithm. Evaluation of the number of B. oleracea gene copies per A. thaliana EST revealed a fixed upward trend. We established a segregation distortion pattern for all genetic loci, with particular consideration of the type of selection (gametic or zygotic), and discuss its possible impact on genetic map construction. Consistent with previous reports, we found evidence for numerous chromosome rearrangements and the genome fragment replication of B. oleracea that have taken place since the divergence of the two species. Also, we found that over 54% of the B. oleracea genome is covered by 24 segments conserved with the A. thaliana genome. The average conserved segment is composed of 5 loci covering 19.3 cM in the B. oleracea genetic map and 2.42 Mb in the A. thaliana physical map. We have also attempted to use a unified system of conserved blocks (previously described) to verify our results and perform a comprehensive comparison with other Brassica species.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".