Assignment of Rainbow Trout Linkage Groups to Specific Chromosomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rainbow trout genetic linkage groups have been assigned to specific chromosomes in the OSU (2N=60) strain using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with BAC probes containing genes mapped to each linkage group. There was a rough correlation between chromosome size and size of the genetic linkage map in centimorgans for the genetic maps based on recombination from the female parent. Chromosome size and structure have a major impact on the female:male recombination ratio, which is much higher (up to 10:1 near the centromeres) on the larger metacentric chromosomes compared to smaller acrocentric chromosomes. Eighty percent of the BAC clones containing duplicate genes mapped to a single chromosomal location, suggesting that diploidization resulted in substantial divergence of intergenic regions. The BAC clones that hybridized to both duplicate loci were usually located in the distal portion of the chromosome. Duplicate genes were almost always found at a similar location on the chromosome arm of two different chromosome pairs, suggesting that most of the chromosome rearrangements following tetraploidization were centric fusions and did not involve homeologous chromosomes. The set of BACs compiled for this research will be especially useful in construction of genome maps and identification of QTL for important traits in other salmonid fishes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".