Integrated physical, genetic and genome map of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical map of chickpea was developed for the reference chickpea genotype (ICC 4958) using bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) libraries targeting 71,094 clones (~12× coverage). High information content fingerprinting (HICF) of these clones gave high-quality fingerprinting data for 67,483 clones, and 1,174 contigs comprising 46,112 clones and 3,256 singletons were defined. In brief, 574 Mb genome size was assembled in 1,174 contigs with an average of 0.49 Mb per contig and 3,256 singletons represent 407 Mb genome. The physical map was linked with two genetic maps with the help of 245 BAC-end sequence (BES)-derived simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. This allowed locating some of the BACs in the vicinity of some important quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for drought tolerance and reistance to Fusarium wilt and Ascochyta blight. In addition, fingerprinted contig (FPC) assembly was also integrated with the draft genome sequence of chickpea. As a result, ~965 BACs including 163 minimum tilling path (MTP) clones could be mapped on eight pseudo-molecules of chickpea forming 491 hypothetical contigs representing 54,013,992 bp (~54 Mb) of the draft genome. Comprehensive analysis of markers in abiotic and biotic stress tolerance QTL regions led to identification of 654, 306 and 23 genes in drought tolerance "QTL-hotspot" region, Ascochyta blight resistance QTL region and Fusarium wilt resistance QTL region, respectively. Integrated physical, genetic and genome map should provide a foundation for cloning and isolation of QTLs/genes for molecular dissection of traits as well as markers for molecular breeding for chickpea improvement.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".