Chloroplast genomes of Lilium lancifolium, L. amabile, L. callosum, and L. philadelphicum: Molecular characterization and their use in phylogenetic analysis in the genus Lilium and other allied genera in the order Liliales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chloroplast (cp) genomes of Lilium amabile, L. callosum, L. lancifolium, and L. philadelphicum were fully sequenced. Using these four novel cp genome sequences and five other previously sequenced cp genomes, features of the cp genomes were characterized in detail among species in the genus Lilium and other related genera in the order Liliales. The lengths and nucleotide composition showed little variation. No structural variation was found among the cp genomes in Liliales. Gene contents were conserved among four newly sequenced cp genome in Lilium species, the only differences being in two pseudogenes. We identified 112 genes in 13 functional categories, 18 of which carried introns that were conserved among the species in Liliales. There were 16-21 SSR loci (>12 bp, >3 repeats) in the cp genomes in Lilium and the genomic locations of these loci were highly variable among the species. Average mutations were 15 SNPs per 1kb and 5 indels per 1kb, respectively, in the cp genomes of the newly sequenced four Lilium species. Phylogenetic classifications revealed some discrepancies between trees based on the cp genomes and previous classifications based on the morphology and geographic distributions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".