Genomic Analyses Reveal Potential Independent Adaptation to High Altitude in Tibetan Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much like other indigenous domesticated animals, Tibetan chickens living at high altitudes (2,200-4,100 m) show specific physiological adaptations to the extreme environmental conditions of the Tibetan Plateau, but the genetic bases of these adaptations are not well characterized. Here, we assembled a de novo genome of a Tibetan chicken and resequenced whole genomes of 32 additional chickens, including Tibetan chickens, village chickens, game fowl, and Red Junglefowl, and found that the Tibetan chickens could broadly be placed into two groups. Further analyses revealed that several candidate genes in the calcium-signaling pathway are possibly involved in adaptation to the hypoxia experienced by these chickens, as these genes appear to have experienced directional selection in the two Tibetan chicken populations, suggesting a potential genetic mechanism underlying high altitude adaptation in Tibetan chickens. The candidate selected genes identified in this study, and their variants, may be useful targets for clarifying our understanding of the domestication of chickens in Tibet, and might be useful in current breeding efforts to develop improved breeds for the highlands.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".