MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331079159 · doi:10.1139/gen-2013-0041

Genome size increases in recently diverged hornwort clades

2013· article· en· W2331079159 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jillian D. Bainard, Juan Carlos Villarreal

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenome sizeBiologyGenomeLineage (genetic)Phylogenetic treeContext (archaeology)CladeEvolutionary biologyPloidyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As our knowledge of plant genome size estimates continues to grow, one group has continually been neglected: the hornworts. Hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) have been traditionally grouped with liverworts and mosses because they share a haploid dominant life cycle; however, recent molecular studies place hornworts as the sister lineage to extant tracheophytes. Given the scarcity of information regarding the DNA content of hornworts, our objective was to estimate the 1C-value for a range of hornwort species within a phylogenetic context. Using flow cytometry, we estimated genome size for 36 samples representing 24 species. This accounts for roughly 10% of known hornwort species. Haploid genome sizes (1C-value) ranged from 160 Mbp or 0.16 pg (Leiosporoceros dussii) to 719 Mbp or 0.73 pg (Nothoceros endiviifolius). The average 1C-value was 261 ± 104 Mbp (0.27 ± 0.11 pg). Ancestral reconstruction of genome size on a hornwort phylogeny suggests a small ancestral genome size and revealed increases in genome size in the most recently divergent clades. Much more work is needed to understand DNA content variation in this phylogenetically important group, but this work has significantly increased our knowledge of genome size variation in hornworts.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.180 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207