Complete plastome sequences of <i>Picea asperata</i> and <i>P. crassifolia</i> and comparative analyses with <i>P. abies</i> and <i>P. morrisonicola</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Picea asperata and P. crassifolia have sympatric ranges and are closely related, but the differences between these species at the plastome level are unknown. To better understand the patterns of variation among Picea plastomes, the complete plastomes of P. asperata and P. crassifolia were sequenced. Then, the plastomes were compared with the complete plastomes of P. abies and P. morrisonicola, which are closely and distantly related to the focal species, respectively. We also used these sequences to construct phylogenetic trees to determine the relationships among and between the four species as well as additional taxa from Pinaceae and other gymnosperms. Analysis of our sequencing data allowed us to identify 438 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) point mutation events, 95 indel events, four inversion events, and seven highly variable regions, including six gene spacer regions (psbJ-petA, trnT-psaM, trnS-trnD, trnL-rps4, psaC-ccsA, and rps7-trnL) and one gene (ycf1). The highly variable regions are appropriate targets for future use in the phylogenetic reconstructions of closely related, sympatric species of Picea as well as Pinaceae in general.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".