High-resolution crossover mapping reveals similarities and differences of male and female recombination in maize
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meiotic crossovers (COs) are not uniformly distributed across the genome. Factors affecting this phenomenon are not well understood. Although many species exhibit large differences in CO numbers between sexes, sex-specific aspects of CO landscape are particularly poorly elucidated. Here, we conduct high-resolution CO mapping in maize. Our results show that CO numbers as well as their overall distribution are similar in male and female meioses. There are, nevertheless, dissimilarities at local scale. Male and female COs differ in their locations relative to transcription start sites in gene promoters and chromatin marks, including nucleosome occupancy and tri-methylation of lysine 4 of histone H3 (H3K4me3). Our data suggest that sex-specific factors not only affect male-female CO number disparities but also cause fine differences in CO positions. Differences between male and female CO landscapes indicate that recombination has distinct implications for population structure and gene evolution in male and in female meioses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".