Assessing the level of collinearity between<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>and<i>Brassica napus</i>for<i>A. thaliana</i>chromosome 5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes a comprehensive comparison of chromosome 5 of the model crucifer Arabidopsis with the genome of its amphidiploid crop relative Brassica napus and introduces the use of in silico sequence homology to identify conserved loci between the two species. A region of chromosome 5, spanning 8 Mb, was found in six highly conserved copies in the B. napus genome. A single inversion appeared to be the predominant rearrangement that had separated the two lineages leading to the formation of Arabidopsis chromosome 5 and its homologues in B. napus. The observed results could be explained by the fusion of three ancestral genomes with strong similarities to modern-day Arabidopsis to generate the constituent diploid genomes of B. napus. This supports the hypothesis that the diploid Brassica genomes evolved from a common hexaploid ancestor. Alignment of the genetic linkage map of B. napus with the genomic sequence of Arabidopsis indicated that for specific regions a genetic distance of 1 cM in B. napus was equivalent to 285 Kb of Arabidopsis DNA sequence. This analysis strongly supports the application of Arabidopsis as a tool in marker development, map-based gene cloning, and candidate gene identification for the larger genomes of Brassica crop species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".