Restriction enzyme digestion chromosome banding in <i>Crassostrea</i> and <i>Ostrea</i> species: comparative karyological analysis within Ostreidae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable banding techniques are a major necessity for genetic research in oysters. In this study, we carried out the cytogenetic characterization of four oyster species (family Ostreidae) using restriction endonuclease treatments. Chromosomes were treated with three different restriction enzymes, stained with Giemsa, and examined for banding patterns. The following species were studied: Crassostrea gigas (2n = 20; total number of bands with ApaI, 74; HaeIII, 61; PstI, 76), Crassostrea angulata (2n = 20; ApaI, 62; HaeIII, 61; PstI, 55) (subfamily Crassostreinae), Ostrea edulis (2n = 20; ApaI, 82; HaeIII, 59; PstI, 66), and Ostrea conchaphila (2n = 20; ApaI, 68; HaeIII, 62; PstI, 69) (subfamily Ostreinae). Treatment of samples with ApaI, HaeIII, and PstI produced specific banding patterns, which demonstrates the potential of these enzymes for chromosome banding in oysters. This is of special interest, since it has been recently shown in mammalian chromosomes that restriction enzyme banding is compatible with fluorescence in situ hybridization. This study therefore provides a fundamental step in genome mapping of oysters, since chromosome banding with restriction enzymes facilitates physical gene mapping in these important aquaculture species. The analysis of the banded karyotypes revealed a greater similarity within the genera of Crassostrea and Ostrea than between them.
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".