Genome comparison in the genus Mus: a study with B1, MIF (mouse interspersed fragment), centromeric, and Y-chromosomal repetitive sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using four repetitive sequences, we compared DNAs isolated from Mus caroli, M. cookii, M. hortulanus, M. musculus, M. pahari, M. saxicola, and M. spretus. Except for B1, these probes showed species-specific hybridization patterns. Mouse interspersed fragment (MIF) sequences were present in all species examined, but those defined by the 1.3-kb EcoR1 band were fewer in M. pahari and M. saxicola than in the other species. The Y-chromosomal probe showed male-specific accumulation only in M. hortulanus, M. musculus, and M. spretus, which are known to be closely related. The genetic difference between M. spretus and the other two species (M. hortulanus and M. musculus) was clearly demonstrated by a M. musuclus centromeric sequence that hybridized strongly to M. hortulanus and M. musculus DNA but was underrepresented in the genome of M. spretus. These results may suggest the usefulness of these repetitive sequences in the classification of Mus species that display only subtle morphological differences.
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 | 0.002 | 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".