Comparative physical mapping reveals features of microsynteny between<i>Glycine max</i>,<i>Medicago truncatula</i>, and<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To gain insight into genomic relationships between soybean (Glycine max) and Medicago truncatula, eight groups of bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) contigs, together spanning 2.60 million base pairs (Mb) in G. max and 1.56 Mb in M. truncatula, were compared through high-resolution physical mapping combined with sequence and hybridization analysis of low-copy BAC ends. Cross-hybridization among G. max and M. truncatula contigs uncovered microsynteny in six of the contig groups and extensive microsynteny in three. Between G. max homoeologous (within genome duplicate) contigs, 85% of coding and 75% of noncoding sequences were conserved at the level of cross-hybridization. By contrast, only 29% of sequences were conserved between G. max and M. truncatula, and some kilobase-scale rearrangements were also observed. Detailed restriction maps were constructed for 11 contigs from the three highly microsyntenic groups, and these maps suggested that sequence order was highly conserved between G. max duplicates and generally conserved between G. max and M. truncatula. One instance of homoeologous BAC contigs in M. truncatula was also observed and examined in detail. A sequence similarity search against the Arabidopsis thaliana genome sequence identified up to three microsyntenic regions in A. thaliana for each of two of the legume BAC contig groups. Together, these results confirm previous predictions of one recent genome-wide duplication in G. max and suggest that M. truncatula also experienced ancient large-scale genome duplications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".