Field cress genome mapping: Integrating linkage and comparative maps with cytogenetic analysis for rDNA carrying chromosomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field cress (Lepidium campestreL.), despite its potential as a sustainable alternative oilseed plant, has been underutilized, and no prior attempts to characterize the genome at the genetic or molecular cytogenetic level have been conducted. Genetic maps are the foundation for anchoring and orienting annotated genome assemblies and positional cloning of candidate genes. Our principal goal was to construct a genetic map using integrated approaches of genetic, comparative and cytogenetic map analyses. In total, 503 F2interspecific hybrid individuals were genotyped using 7,624 single nucleotide polymorphism markers. Comparative analysis demonstrated that ~57% of the sequenced loci inL. campestrewere congruent withArabidopsis thaliana(L.) genome and suggested a novel karyotype, which predates the ancestral crucifer karyotype. Aceto-orcein chromosome staining and fluorescencein situhybridization (FISH) analyses confirmed thatL. campestre,L. heterophyllumBenth. and their hybrids had a chromosome number of 2n = 2x = 16. Flow cytometric analysis revealed that both species possess 2C roughly 0.4 picogram DNA. Integrating linkage and comparative maps with cytogenetic map analyses assigned two linkage groups to their particular chromosomes. Future work could incorporate FISH utilizingA. thalianamapped BAC clones to allow the chromosomes of field cress to be identified reliably.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".