Conserved flanking microsatellite sequences (ReFS) differentiate between Lepidoptera species, and provide insight into microsatellite evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High rates of mutation and homoplasy mean that microsatellites generally are not considered to be useful molecular markers for inferring systematic relationships between species. However, an earlier pilot study suggested that conserved flanking microsatellite sequences, also known as repetitive flanking sequences (ReFS), may form a basis for a dominant marker that can differentiate between species of Lepidoptera. We present data that demonstrate that ReFS are quick and easy to use, and generate highly repeatable banding patterns from a range of Lepidoptera species. Sequence data from a subset of ReFS‐amplified bands revealed microsatellite families with flanking sequences that are more conserved within than among species: this is probably attributable to recombination‐mediated events, transposition of mobile elements or a combination of the two. Our data support the use of ReFS as dominant interspecific molecular markers, and add to the growing literature on the evolution of microsatellites in Lepidoptera.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".