Comparative genomic analysis of sequences sampled from a small region on soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>) molecular linkage group G
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eight DNA markers spanning an interval of approximately 10 centimorgans (cM) on soybean (Glycine max) molecular linkage group G (MLG-G) were used to identify bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones. Twenty-eight BAC clones in eight distinct contiguous groups (contigs) were isolated from this genome region, along with 59 BAC clones on 17 contigs homoeologous to those on MLG-G. BAC clones in four of the MLG-G contigs were also digested to produce subclones and detailed physical maps. All of the BAC-ends were sequenced, as were the subclones, to estimate proportions in different sequence categories, compare similarities among homoeologs, and explore microsynteny with Arabidopsis. Homoeologous BAC contigs were enriched in repetitive sequences compared with those on MLG-G or the soybean genome as a whole. Fingerprint and cross-hybridization comparisons between MLG-G and homoeologous contigs revealed cases of highly similar physical organization between soybean duplicates, as did DNA sequence comparisons. Twenty-seven out of 78 total sequences on soybean MLG-G showed significant similarity to Arabidopsis. The homologs mapped to six compact genome segments in Arabidopsis, with the longest containing seven homologs spanning two million base pairs. These results extend previous observations of large-scale duplication and selective gene loss in Arabidopsis, suggesting that networks of conserved synteny between Arabidopsis and other angiosperm families can stretch over long physical distances.
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".