Karyotypes, constitutive heterochromatin, and genomic DNA values in the blowfly genera<i>Chrysomya</i>,<i>Lucilia</i>, and<i>Protophormia</i>(Diptera: Calliphoridae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The karyotypes and C-banding patterns of Chrysomya species C. marginalis, C. phaonis, C. pinguis, C. saffranea, C. megacephala (New Guinean strain), Lucilia sericata, and Protophormia terraenovae are described. All species are amphogenic and have similar chromosome complements (2n = 12), including an XY-XX sex-chromosome pair varying in size and morphology between species. Additionally, the C-banding pattern of the monogenic species Chrysomya albiceps is presented. The DNA contents of these and of further species Chrysomya rufifacies, Chrysomya varipes, and Chrysomya putoria were assessed on mitotic metaphases by Feulgen cytophotometry. The average 2C DNA value of the male genomes ranged from 1.04 pg in C. varipes to 2.31 pg in C. pinguis. The DNA content of metaphase X chromosomes varied from 0.013 pg (= 1.23% of the total genome) in C. varipes to 0.277 pg (12.20%) in L. sericata; that of Y chromosomes ranged from 0.003 pg (0.27%) in C. varipes to 0.104 pg (5.59%) in L. sericata. In most species, the corresponding 5 large chromosome pairs showed similar relative DNA contents. The data suggest that the interspecific DNA differences in most species are mainly due to quantitative variation of (repetitive) sequences lying outside the centromeric heterochromatin blocks of the large chromosomes. The results are also discussed with regard to phylogenetic relationships of some species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".