The Genome of Black Cottonwood, <i>Populus trichocarpa</i> (Torr. & Gray)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the draft genome of the black cottonwood tree, Populus trichocarpa. Integration of shotgun sequence assembly with genetic mapping enabled chromosome-scale reconstruction of the genome. More than 45,000 putative protein-coding genes were identified. Analysis of the assembled genome revealed a whole-genome duplication event; about 8000 pairs of duplicated genes from that event survived in the Populus genome. A second, older duplication event is indistinguishably coincident with the divergence of the Populus and Arabidopsis lineages. Nucleotide substitution, tandem gene duplication, and gross chromosomal rearrangement appear to proceed substantially more slowly in Populus than in Arabidopsis. Populus has more protein-coding genes than Arabidopsis, ranging on average from 1.4 to 1.6 putative Populus homologs for each Arabidopsis gene. However, the relative frequency of protein domains in the two genomes is similar. Overrepresented exceptions in Populus include genes associated with lignocellulosic wall biosynthesis, meristem development, disease resistance, and metabolite transport.
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 | 0.001 |
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".