MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331030980 · doi:10.1139/gen-2013-0082

Whole genome sequencing of Gir cattle for identifying polymorphisms and loci under selection

2013· article· en· W2331030980 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Xiaoping Liao, Fred Y Peng, Selma Forni, David G. McLaren, Graham Plastow, Paul Stothard

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsIndelSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneGenomeDNA sequencingWhole genome sequencingGenetic variationGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic variation in Gir cattle (Bos indicus) has so far not been well characterized. In this study, we used whole genome sequencing of three Gir bulls and a pooled sample from another 11 bulls to identify polymorphisms and loci under selection. A total of 9 990 733 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 604 308 insertion/deletions (indels) were discovered in Gir samples, of which 62.34% and 83.62%, respectively, are previously unknown. Moreover, we detected 79 putative selective sweeps using the sequence data of the pooled sample. One of the most striking sweeps harbours several genes belonging to the cathelicidin gene family, such as CAMP, CATHL1, CATHL2, and CATHL3, which are related to pathogen- and parasite-resistance. Another interesting region harbours genes encoding mitogen-activated protein kinases, which are involved in directing cellular responses to a variety of stimuli, such as osmotic stress and heat shock. These findings are particularly interesting because Gir is resistant to hot temperatures and tropical diseases. This initial selective sweep analysis of Gir cattle has revealed a number of loci that could be important for their adaptation to tropical climates.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations60
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207