Efficient high-resolution deletion discovery in <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i> by array comparative genomic hybridization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have developed array Comparative Genomic Hybridization for Caenorhabditis elegans as a means of screening for novel induced deletions in this organism. We designed three microarrays consisting of overlapping 50-mer probes to annotated exons and micro-RNAs, the first with probes to chromosomes X and II, the second with probes to chromosome II alone, and a third to the entire genome. These arrays were used to reliably detect both a large (50 kb) multigene deletion and a small (1 kb) single-gene deletion in homozygous and heterozygous samples. In one case, a deletion breakpoint was resolved to fewer than 50 bp. In an experiment designed to identify new mutations we used the X:II and II arrays to detect deletions associated with lethal mutants on chromosome II. One is an 8-kb deletion targeting the ast-1 gene on chromosome II and another is a 141-bp deletion in the gene C06A8.1. Others span large sections of the chromosome, up to >750 kb. As a further application of array Comparative Genomic Hybridization in C. elegans we used the whole-genome array to detect the extensive natural gene content variation (almost 2%) between the N2 Bristol strain and the strain CB4856, a strain isolated in Hawaii and JU258, a strain isolated in Madeira.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".