Conservation of Synteny Between Guppy and <i>Xiphophorus</i> Genomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it