Ty1-<i>copia</i>-like retrotransposons of tomato (<i>Lycopersicon esculentum</i> Mill.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have used a PCR and cloning strategy to identify Ty1-copia-like retrotransposons in tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Using degenerate oligonucleotide primers corresponding to conserved domains of the Ty1-copia retrotransposon reverse transcriptase (RT), fragments of about 260 bp were obtained by PCR amplification. Sequences of 20 cloned amplification fragments showed similarity to retrotransposon sequences. The copy number for total tomato Ty1-copia-like RT population was estimated to be approximately 2500 and may account for about 1.5% of the tomato genome. Copy numbers for four of the individual RT clones ranged from 20 to 1400 copies. A comparison of the conceptual translations of the RT sequences identified four clusters as well as three sequences which were ungrouped. When compared to RT sequences reported from several other sources, the tomato RT population was found to be widely dispersed with the majority of the RT sequences from Lycopersicon species delineated by the four tomato cluster groups. The gag region of a tomato retrotransposon was cloned from PCRs with primers based on the Tnt1 retrotransposon of tobacco. The tomato clone (pTom1.1) had 81% sequence similarity to the Tntl gag region. Several pTom1.1 sequences are present in other solanaceous species as indicated by Southern hybridization.
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) | 0.002 | 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".