Does epigenome is influenced by allopollyploidisation during the evolution of Gossypium hirsutum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".