MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015175501 · doi:10.1139/g03-088

B chromosomes and genome size in flowering plants

2004· article· en· W2015175501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Trivers, Austin Burt, Brian G. Palestis

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterJohn Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation
KeywordsBiologyGenomeGenome sizePloidyGeneticsChromosomeEvolutionary biologyB chromosomeOutbreeding depressionGenome evolutionKaryotypeGeneInbreeding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

B chromosomes are extra chromosomes found in some, but not all, individuals within a species, often maintained by giving themselves an advantage in transmission, i.e. they drive. Here we show that the presence of B chromosomes correlates to and varies strongly and positively with total genome size (excluding the Bs and corrected for ploidy) both at a global level and via a comparison of independent taxonomic contrasts. B chromosomes are largely absent from species with small genomes; however, species with large genomes are studied more frequently than species with small genomes and Bs are more likely to be reported in well-studied species. We controlled for intensity of study using logistic regression. This regression analysis also included effects of degree of outbreeding, which is positively associated with Bs and genome size, and chromosome number, which is negatively associated with Bs and genome size, as well as variable ploidy (more than one ploidy level in a species). Genome size, breeding system and chromosome number all contribute independently to the distribution of B chromosomes, while variable ploidy does not have a significant effect. The genome size correlates are consistent with reduced selection against extra DNA in species with large genomes and with increased generation of B sequences from large A genomes.

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 score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.196
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 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

Citations97
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207