Co-linearity and divergence of the A subgenome of Brassica juncea compared with other Brassica species carrying different A subgenomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are three basic Brassica genomes (A, B, and C) and three parallel sets of subgenomes distinguished in the diploid Brassica (i.e.: B. rapa, A(r)A(r); B. nigra, B(ni)B(ni); B. oleracea, C(o)C(o)) and the derived allotetraploid species (i.e.: B. juncea, A(j)A(j)B(j)B(j); B. napus, A(n)A(n)C(n)C(n); B. carinata, B(c)B(c)C(c)C(c)). To understand subgenome differentiation in B. juncea in comparison to other A genome-carrying Brassica species (B. rapa and B. napus), we constructed a dense genetic linkage map of B. juncea, and conducted population genetic analysis on diverse lines of the three A-genome carrying Brassica species using a genotyping-by-sequencing approach (DArT-seq). RESULTS: A dense genetic linkage map of B. juncea was constructed using an F2 population derived from Sichuan Yellow/Purple Mustard. The map included 3329 DArT-seq markers on 18 linkage groups and covered 1579 cM with an average density of two markers per cM. Based on this map and the alignment of the marker sequences with the physical genome of Arabidopsis thaliana, we observed strong co-linearity of the ancestral blocks among the different A subgenomes but also considerable block variation. Comparative analyses at the level of genome sequences of B. rapa and B. napus, and marker sequence anchored on the genetic map of B. juncea, revealed a total of 30 potential inversion events across large segments and 20 potential translocation events among the three A subgenomes. Population genetic analysis on 26 accessions of the three A genome-carrying Brassica species showed that the highest genetic distance were estimated when comparing A(j)-A(n) than between A(n)-A(r) and A(j)-A(r) subgenome pairs. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the dense genetic linkage map of B. juncea with informative DArT-seq marker sequences and availability of the reference sequences of the A(r), and A(n)C(n) genomes allowed us to compare the A subgenome structure of B. juncea (A(j)) . Our results suggest that strong co-linearity exists among the three A Brassica genomes (A(r), A(n) and A(j)) but with apparent subgenomic variation. Population genetic analysis on three A-genome carrying Brassica species support the idea that B. juncea has distinct genomic diversity, and/or evolved from a different A genome progenitor of B. napus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".