Haplotype-Based Genomic Sequencing of a Chromosomal Polymorphism in the White-Throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inversion polymorphisms have been linked to a variety of fundamental biological and evolutionary processes. Yet few studies have used large-scale genomic sequencing to directly compare the haplotypes associated with the standard and inverted chromosome arrangements. Here we describe the targeted genomic sequencing and comparison of haplotypes representing alternative arrangements of a common inversion polymorphism linked to a suite of phenotypes in the white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). More than 7.4 Mb of genomic sequence was generated and assembled from both the standard (ZAL2) and inverted (ZAL2(m)) arrangements. Sequencing of a pair of inversion breakpoints led to the identification of a ZAL2-specific segmental duplication, as well as evidence of breakpoint reusage. Comparison of the haplotype-based sequence assemblies revealed low genetic differentiation outside versus inside the inversion indicative of historical patterns of gene flow and suppressed recombination between ZAL2 and ZAL2(m). Finally, despite ZAL2(m) being maintained in a near constant state of heterozygosity, no signatures of genetic degeneration were detected on this chromosome. Overall, these results provide important insights into the genomic attributes of an inversion polymorphism linked to mate choice and variation in social behavior.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".