Mu Transposon Insertion Sites and Meiotic Recombination Events Co-Localize with Epigenetic Marks for Open Chromatin across the Maize Genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mu transposon system of maize is highly active, with each of the approximately 50-100 copies transposing on average once each generation. The approximately one dozen distinct Mu transposons contain highly similar approximately 215 bp terminal inverted repeats (TIRs) and generate 9-bp target site duplications (TSDs) upon insertion. Using a novel genome walking strategy that uses these conserved TIRs as primer binding sites, Mu insertion sites were amplified from Mu stocks and sequenced via 454 technology. 94% of approximately 965,000 reads carried Mu TIRs, demonstrating the specificity of this strategy. Among these TIRs, 21 novel Mu TIRs were discovered, revealing additional complexity of the Mu transposon system. The distribution of >40,000 non-redundant Mu insertion sites was strikingly non-uniform, such that rates increased in proportion to distance from the centromere. An identified putative Mu transposase binding consensus site does not explain this non-uniformity. An integrated genetic map containing more than 10,000 genetic markers was constructed and aligned to the sequence of the maize reference genome. Recombination rates (cM/Mb) are also strikingly non-uniform, with rates increasing in proportion to distance from the centromere. Mu insertion site frequencies are strongly correlated with recombination rates. Gene density does not fully explain the chromosomal distribution of Mu insertion and recombination sites, because pronounced preferences for the distal portion of chromosome are still observed even after accounting for gene density. The similarity of the distributions of Mu insertions and meiotic recombination sites suggests that common features, such as chromatin structure, are involved in site selection for both Mu insertion and meiotic recombination. The finding that Mu insertions and meiotic recombination sites both concentrate in genomic regions marked with epigenetic marks of open chromatin provides support for the hypothesis that open chromatin enhances rates of both Mu insertion and meiotic recombination.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".