Generation of chicken Z-chromosome painting probes by microdissection for screening large-insert genomic libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A strategy for rapid generation of chicken sex chromosome-Z painting probes has been developed using microdissection. Whole chromosome painting probes (WCPs) were prepared from 10-15 copies of mitotic metaphase chicken Z chromosomes. The microisolated chromosomes were subjected to PEG/proteinase K treatment in a collection drop to release DNA, which was then amplified using a degenerate oligonucleotide-primed shuttle PCR (DOP-Shuttle-PCR) strategy. Size distributions of the PCR products were analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis and smears of DNA were revealed that ranged in size from 200-800 bp, without any evidence of preferential amplification. Both specificity and complexity of the probes have been analyzed by Southern blot and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Non-specific hybridization was efficiently blocked by using chicken competitor DNA. Analysis of the WCPs produced shows that collectively they provide uniform hybridization signals along the entire length of the chicken Z chromosome. To demonstrate one possible application of these complex probes, we screened a large-insert bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) chicken genomic library to select Z chromosome-specific clones. To address specificity of the selected clones and to physically map them to the Z chromosome, FISH analysis was used. Of the 3 clones initially tested, one clone (C3) carrying a 250-kb insert mapped to the distal portion of the short arm of the chicken Z chromosome. Therefore, this technique has provided appropriate probes for screening large-insert genomic libraries. Further application of these probes includes the analysis of chromosome rearrangements, studies of cases of heteroploidy involving the Z chromosome, positional cloning of Z-linked genes and studies on mechanisms of sex-chromosome evolution in birds.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".