MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146746820 · doi:10.1534/genetics.105.050229

Rates of Recombination in the Ribosomal DNA of Apomictically Propagated <i>Daphnia obtusa</i> Lines

2006· article· en· W2146746820 on OpenAlexaff
Seanna McTaggart, Jeffry L. Dudycha, Angela R. Omilian, Teresa J. Crease

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsBiologyRecombinationRibosomal DNAGeneticsConcerted evolutionRibosomal RNAPloidyGenePhylogenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ribosomal (r)DNA undergoes concerted evolution, the mechanisms of which are unequal crossing over and gene conversion. Despite the fundamental importance of these mechanisms to the evolution of rDNA, their rates have been estimated only in a few model species. We estimated recombination rate in rDNA by quantifying the relative frequency of intraindividual length variants in an expansion segment of the 18S rRNA gene of the cladoceran crustacean, Daphnia obtusa, in four apomictically propagated lines. We also used quantitative PCR to estimate rDNA copy number. The apomictic lines were sampled every 5 generations for 90 generations, and we considered each significant change in the frequency distribution of length variants between time intervals to be the result of a recombination event. Using this method, we calculated the recombination rate for this region to be 0.02-0.06 events/generation on the basis of three different estimates of rDNA copy number. In addition, we observed substantial changes in rDNA copy number within and between lines. Estimates of haploid copy number varied from 53 to 233, with a mean of 150. We also measured the relative frequency of length variants in 30 lines at generations 5, 50, and 90. Although length variant frequencies changed significantly within and between lines, the overall average frequency of each length variant did not change significantly between the three generations sampled, suggesting that there is little or no bias in the direction of change due to recombination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207