Identification of X chromosomal restriction fragment length polymorphism markers and their use in a gene localization study in<i>Drosophila virilis</i>and<i>D</i>.<i>littoralis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have identified six restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) markers based on unique gene sequences on the X chromosome of Drosophila virilis and D. littoralis. The markers were localized by in situ hybridization on larval polytene chromosomes, and the conjugation of the X chromosomes of the two species was studied in salivary glands of interspecific hybrid female larvae. The gene arrangement of D. virilis and D. littoralis appeared to be very different at the proximal end of the X chromosome preventing recombination between RFLP markers located in this area. Simple quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis showed that five of our marker genes (including nonA and Dmca1A, previously found to affect male courtship song in D. melanogaster) are linked with a gene(s) having a major effect on species differences in the male courtship song between D. virilis and D. littoralis. This shows that the song gene(s) may be located inside a large X-chromosomal inversion in D. littoralis (as previously suggested), but that it may also be located on an area between this inversion and the centromere, close to nonA and Dmca1A. Localization of this gene or gene complex will be continued with the aid of our newly identified RFLP markers by making interspecific crosses between D. virilis group species with more similar X chromosomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".