MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948234356 · doi:10.3390/genes10060426

De Novo Sequencing, Assembly, and Annotation of Four Threespine Stickleback Genomes Based on Microfluidic Partitioned DNA Libraries

2019· article· en· W2948234356 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Berner, Marius Roesti, Steven Bilobram, Simon K. Chan, Heather Kirk, Pawan Pandoh, Gregory A. Taylor, Yongjun Zhao, Steven J.M. Jones, Jacquelin DeFaveri

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsSticklebackGenomeBiologySequence assemblyGenomicsComputational biologyDNA sequencingReference genomeAnnotationEvolutionary biologyGeneGeneticsFish <Actinopterygii>TranscriptomeFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The threespine stickleback is a geographically widespread and ecologically highly diverse fish that has emerged as a powerful model system for evolutionary genomics and developmental biology. Investigations in this species currently rely on a single high-quality reference genome, but would benefit from the availability of additional, independently sequenced and assembled genomes. We present here the assembly of four new stickleback genomes, based on the sequencing of microfluidic partitioned DNA libraries. The base pair lengths of the four genomes reach 92–101% of the standard reference genome length. Together with their de novo gene annotation, these assemblies offer a resource enhancing genomic investigations in stickleback. The genomes and their annotations are available from the Dryad Digital Repository (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.113j3h7).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207