Genome Assembly of Camelina microcarpa Andrz. Ex DC, A step towards understanding genome evolution in Camelina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how genomes evolve can help us disentangle the evolutionary history of species, which has practical applications in agriculture.The Camelina genus contains nine species including the emerging oilseed crop, Camelina sativa, and its wild relative, Camelina microcarpa.Hexaploid C. microcarpa is almost perfectly sexually compatible with C. sativa, and diploid C. microcarpa is a potential descendant of one of C. sativa's progenitors.Thus, these species are likely to have a complex history of hybridization and polyploidy that is unexplored.We have sequenced and assembled a draft genome of diploid C. microcarpa into 1036 scaffolds which cover 73% of the 264 Mb estimated genome size, and evaluated its evolutionary relationship with the chromosomes of C. sativa through the construction of phylogenies for each conserved ancestral crucifer karyotype (ACK) block.Based on these phylogenies, I propose revisions to the previously described C. sativa karyotype and that C. microcarpa is most closely related to subgenome 2 of C. sativa.Sequencing C. microcarpa is the key step to understand genome evolution in the Camelina genus.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".