EST sequencing and fosmid library construction in a non-model moth,<i>Mamestra brassicae</i>, for comparative mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome data are useful for both basic and applied research; however, it is difficult to carry out large-scale genome analyses using species with limited genetic or genomic resources. Here, we describe a cost-effective method to analyze the genome of a non-model species, using the cabbage moth, Mamestra brassicae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). First, we conducted expression sequence tag (EST) analysis. In this analysis, we performed PCR-based prescreening of a non-normalized embryonic cDNA library to eliminate already sequenced cDNAs from further sequencing, which significantly increased the percentage of unique genes. Next, we constructed a fosmid library of M. brassicae and isolated 120 clones containing 119 putative single copy genes by PCR-based screening with primer sets designed from the ESTs. Finally, we showed that the isolated fosmid clones could be used as probes for multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis against an M. brassicae chromosome and confirmed conserved gene order between M. brassicae and the silkworm, Bombyx mori. Thus, we developed new genomic resources for comparative genome analysis in M. brassicae using robust and relatively low cost methods that can be applied to any non-model organism.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".