MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764029430 · doi:10.24870/cjb.2017-a171

Does epigenome is influenced by allopollyploidisation during the evolution of Gossypium hirsutum

2017· article· en· W2764029430 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Priti Prasad, Samir V. Sawant

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Biotechnology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicResearch in Cotton Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpigenomeGossypium hirsutumBiologyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsAgronomyDNA methylationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In ecological and evolutionary time scale, Darwinian selection acts on each nucleotide to shape the whole genome. Beside nucleotide diversity, epigenetic modifications seem to be conserved in intra and inter-species during evolution. Gossypium hirsutum (A 1 D 1 ) is an allotetraploid crop plant which was evolved from morphologically different diploid ancestors by polyploidisation event expected to occur around 1 million year ago. Its progenitors are Gossypium arboreum (A) and Gossypium ramondii (D) and they are still available for study. We are keen to understand whether the epigenome structure of A-and Dsubgenomes are conserved or influenced by polyploidisation? To understand the influence of polyploidisation on the epigenome, it is important to determine conserved DNA elements which are under purifying selection during evolution. We aligned whole genome sequences of Gossypium hirsutum, Gossypium arboreum, Gossypium ramondii and T. cacoa by LASTZ aligner taking T. cacoa as a reference genome. Our analysis revealed conserved DNA elements and their distribution in the A/D sub-genomes. The portion of the A/D sub-genome under purifying selection is also determined. Our future study on DNA methylome of Gossypium arboreum (A) and Gossypium ramondii (D) and AD-genome of Gossypium hirsutum and their correlation with conserved DNA elements will reveal influence of polyploidisation on epigenome.

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)0.001
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 score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BiotechnologySame topicResearch in Cotton CultivationFrench-language works237,207