Comparative sequence analysis between orthologous regions of the<i>Arabidopsis</i>and<i>Populus</i>genomes reveals substantial synteny and microcollinearity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 300 kb of DNA sequence from five Populus bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones was compared with the complete sequence of the Arabidopsis genome to search for collinearity between the genomes of these two plant genera. Approximately 27% of the DNA sequences from the Populus genome were homologous to protein-coding regions in the Arabidopsis genome. BLAST scores and synteny were used to infer orthologous relationships between the Populus and Arabidopsis homologs. The probability that any pair of genes on a single Populus BAC will have orthologs on the same Arabidopsis chromosome is 46%58%, substantially greater than the 20% expectation if there is no conservation of synteny between the Populus and Arabidopsis genomes. Likewise, the probability that any pair of genes on a single Populus BAC will have orthologs on a single Arabidopsis BAC is 19%25%, much higher than the 0.1% expected if the orthologs are randomly distributed. These results provide evidence for substantial "pockets" of conserved microcollinearity between regions of the Populus and Arabidopsis genomes as well as for conservation of synteny even when local gene collinearity is not preserved during genome evolution.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".