Conservation of Synteny Between Guppy and <i>Xiphophorus</i> Genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The guppy and fish in the genus Xiphophorus have both been important model systems for the study of natural and sexual selection for over 50 years. Whereas the guppy is unique in the degree to which the environmental variables shaping phenotypic variation are known, Xiphophorus has the advantage that genomic resources have been developed due to the utility of this taxon for the study of melanoma. If linkage maps for the guppy and Xiphophorus are similar, genomic resources developed in Xiphophorus will be useful in the guppy. The authors used an F2 mapping cross of divergent populations of the guppy to construct partial female and male genetic linkage maps incorporating microsatellite markers derived from Xiphophorus mapping efforts. Flanking regions for a sample of microsatellites occurring in maps for both taxa were sequenced in the guppy and compared to published sequences from Xiphophorus. This confirmed that these loci were homologous and estimated the divergence in neutral nuclear DNA to be 0.21 substitutions per site. The female map comprises 16 linked markers on six linkage groups, and the male map comprises 24 markers on nine linkage groups. Linkage relationships among loci homologous in the guppy and Xiphophorus primarily show conservation of genetic architecture between species, but several major changes were detected.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".