No clustering for linkage map based on low-copy and undermethylated microsatellites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering has been reported for conifer genetic maps based on hypomethylated or low-copy molecular markers, resulting in uneven marker distribution. To test this, a framework genetic map was constructed from three types of microsatellites: low-copy, undermethylated, and genomic. These Pinus taeda L. microsatellites were mapped using a three-generation pedigree with 118 progeny. The microsatellites were highly informative; of the 32 markers in intercross configuration, 29 were segregating for three or four alleles in the progeny. The sex-averaged map placed 51 of the 95 markers in 15 linkage groups at LOD > 4.0. No clustering or uneven distribution across the genome was observed. The three types of P. taeda microsatellites were randomly dispersed within each linkage group. The 51 microsatellites covered a map distance of 795 cM, an average distance of 21.8 cM between markers, roughly half of the estimated total map length. The minimum and maximum distances between any two bins was 4.4 and 45.3 cM, respectively. These microsatellites provided anchor points for framework mapping for polymorphism in P. taeda and other closely related hard pines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".