Tandem repeat DNA localizing on the proximal DAPI bands of chromosomes in <i>Larix</i>, Pinaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive DNA was cloned from HindIII-digested genomic DNA of Larix leptolepis. The repetitive DNA was about 170 bp long, had an AT content of 67%, and was organized tandemly in the genome. Using fluorescence in situ hybridization and subsequent DAPI banding, the repetitive DNA was localized in DAPI bands at the proximal region of one arm of chromosomes in L. leptolepis and Larix chinensis. Southern blot hybridization to genomic DNA of seven species and five varieties probed with cloned repetitive DNA showed that the repetitive DNA family was present in a tandem organization in genomes of all Larix taxa examined. In addition to the 170-bp sequence, a 220-bp sequence belonging to the same DNA family was also present in 10 taxa. The 220-bp repeat unit was a partial duplication of the 170-bp repeat unit. The 220-bp repeat unit was more abundant in L. chinensis and Larix potaninii var. macrocarpa than in other taxa. The repetitive DNA composed 2.0-3.4% of the genome in most taxa and 0.3 and 0.5% of the genome in L. chinensis and L. potaninii var. macrocarpa, respectively. The unique distribution of the 220-bp repeat unit in Larix indicates the close relationship of these two species. In the family Pinaceae, the LPD (Larix proximal DAPI band specific repeat sequence family) family sequence is widely distributed, but their amount is very small except in the genus Larix. The abundant LPD family in Larix will occur after its speciation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".