MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Structural homology in the Solanaceae: analysis of genomic regions in support of synteny studies in tomato, potato and pepper

2012· article· en· W2096527618 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sander Peters, Joachim W. Bargsten, Dóra Szinay, José van de Belt, Richard G. F. Visser, Yuling Bai, Hans de Jong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Genetics
KeywordsSyntenyBiologyGeneticsRetrotransposonHomology (biology)GeneSolanaceaeGenomeTransposable element

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have analysed the structural homology in euchromatin regions of tomato, potato and pepper with special attention for the long arm of chromosome 2 (2L). Molecular organization and colinear junctions were delineated using multi-color BAC FISH analysis and comparative sequence alignment. We found large-scale rearrangements including inversions and segmental translocations that were not reported in previous comparative studies. Some of the structural rearrangements are specific for the tomato clade, and differentiate tomato from potato, pepper and other Solanaceous species. Although local gene vicinity is largely preserved, there are many small-scale synteny perturbations. Gene adjacency in the aligned segments was frequently disrupted for 47% of the ortholog pairs as a result of gene and LTR retrotransposon insertions, and occasionally by single gene inversions and translocations. Our data also suggests that long distance intra-chromosomal rearrangements and local gene rearrangements have evolved frequently during speciation in the Solanum genus, and that small changes are more prevalent than large-scale differences. The occurrence of sonata and harbinger transposable elements and other repeats near or at junction breaks is considered in the light of repeat-mediated rearrangements and a reconstruction scenario for an ancestral 2L topology is discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207