MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952351148 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2018.00392

Genome Sequence of Peacock Reveals the Peculiar Case of a Glittering Bird

2018· article· en· W2952351148 on OpenAlexaff
Shubham K. Jaiswal, Ankit Gupta, Rituja Saxena, V. K., Ashok Sharma, Parul Mittal, Ankita Roy, Aaron B. A. Shafer, Nagarjun Vijay, Vineet K. Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersIndian Institute of Science Education and Research Bhopal
KeywordsBiologyGenomeEvolutionary biologyPhenotypeZebra finchComparative genomicsGeneGeneticsConvergent evolutionAcquired immune systemLineage (genetic)GenomicsPhylogeneticsImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unique ornamental features and extreme sexual traits of Peacock have always intrigued scientists and naturalists for centuries. However, the genomic basis of these phenotypes are yet unknown. Here, we report the first genome sequence and comparative analysis of peacock with the high quality genomes of chicken, turkey, duck, flycatcher and zebra finch. Genes involved in early developmental pathways including TGF-β, BMP, and Wnt signaling, which have been shown to be involved in feather patterning, bone morphogenesis, and skeletal muscle development, revealed signs of adaptive evolution and provided useful clues on the phenotypes of peacock. Innate and adaptive immune genes involved in complement system and T-cell response also showed signs of adaptive evolution in peacock suggesting their possible role in building a robust immune system which is consistent with the predictions of the Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis. This study provides novel genomic and evolutionary insights into the molecular understanding toward the phenotypic evolution of Indian peacock.

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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207