Patterns of genome duplication within the<i>Brassica napus</i>genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The progenitor diploid genomes (A and C) of the amphidiploid Brassica napus are extensively duplicated with 73% of genomic clones detecting two or more duplicate sequences within each of the diploid genomes. This comprehensive duplication of loci is to be expected in a species that has evolved through a polyploid ancestor. The majority of the duplicate loci within each of the diploid genomes were found in distinct linkage groups as collinear blocks of linked loci, some of which had undergone a variety of rearrangements subsequent to duplication, including inversions and translocations. A number of identical rearrangements were observed in the two diploid genomes, suggesting they had occurred before the divergence of the two species. A number of linkage groups displayed an organization consistent with centric fusion and (or) fission, suggesting this mechanism may have played a role in the evolution of Brassica genomes. For almost every genetically mapped locus detected in the A genome a homologous locus was found in the C genome; the collinear arrangement of these homologous markers allowed the primary regions of homoeology between the two genomes to be identified. At least 16 gross chromosomal rearrangements differentiated the two diploid genomes during their divergence from a common ancestor.
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".