MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094744115 · doi:10.1016/j.gpb.2020.10.002

Paleo-Polyploidization in Lycophytes

2020· article· en· W3094744115 on OpenAlexaff
Jinpeng Wang, Jigao Yu, Pengchuan Sun, Xiaoming Song, Tianyu Lei, Yuxian Li, Jiaqing Yuan, Sangrong Sun, Hongling Ding, Xueqian Duan, Shaoqi Shen, Yanshuang Shen, Jing Li, Fanbo Meng, Yangqin Xie, Jianyu Wang, Yue Hou, Jin Zhang, Xian‐Chun Zhang, Andrew H. Paterson, Xiyin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hebei ProvinceMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsBiologySelaginellaGenomeEvolutionary biologyVascular plantBotanyGeneGeneticsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lycophytes and seed plants constitute the typical vascular plants. Lycophytes have been thought to have no paleo-polyploidization although the event is known to be critical for the fast expansion of seed plants. Here, genomic analyses including the homologous gene dot plot analysis detected multiple paleo-polyploidization events, with one occurring approximately 13-15 million years ago (MYA) and another about 125-142 MYA, during the evolution of the genome of Selaginella moellendorffii, a model lycophyte. In addition, comparative analysis of reconstructed ancestral genomes of lycophytes and angiosperms suggested that lycophytes were affected by more paleo-polyploidization events than seed plants. Results from the present genomic analyses indicate that paleo-polyploidization has contributed to the successful establishment of both lineages-lycophytes and seed plants-of vascular plants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomics Proteomics & BioinformaticsSame topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207