Comparison of a <i>Brassica oleracea</i> Genetic Map With the Genome of <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brassica oleracea is closely related to the model plant, Arabidopsis thaliana. Despite this relationship, it has been difficult to both identify the most closely related segments between the genomes and determine the degree of genome replication within B. oleracea relative to A. thaliana. These difficulties have arisen in part because both species have replicated genomes, and the criteria used to identify orthologous regions between the genomes are often ambiguous. In this report, we compare the positions of sequenced Brassica loci with a known position on a B. oleracea genetic map to the positions of their putative orthologs within the A. thaliana genome. We use explicit criteria to distinguish orthologous from paralogous loci. In addition, we develop a conservative algorithm to identify collinear loci between the genomes and a permutation test to evaluate the significance of these regions. The algorithm identified 34 significant A. thaliana regions that are collinear with >28% of the B. oleracea genetic map. These regions have a mean of 3.3 markers spanning 2.1 Mbp of the A. thaliana genome and 2.5 cM of the B. oleracea genetic map. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the B. oleracea genome has been highly rearranged since divergence from A. thaliana, likely as a result of polyploidization.
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) | 0.002 | 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".