MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181757884 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.671686

Whole Genome Sequencing Reveals Signatures for Artificial Selection for Different Sizes in Japanese Primitive Dog Breeds

2021· article· en· W3181757884 on OpenAlexaff
Guangqi Lyu, Chunyu Feng, Shiyu Zhu, Shuang Ren, Wanyi Dang, David M. Irwin, Zhe Wang, Shuyi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDepartment of Education of Liaoning Province
KeywordsBiologyBreedGenomeGeneSelection (genetic algorithm)GeneticsCandidate geneSingle-nucleotide polymorphismEvolutionary biologyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body size is an important trait in companion animals. Recently, a primitive Japanese dog breed, the Shiba Inu, has experienced artificial selection for smaller body size, resulting in the “Mame Shiba Inu” breed. To identify loci and genes that might explain the difference in the body size of these Shiba Inu dogs, we applied whole genome sequencing of pooled samples (pool-seq) on both Shiba Inu and Mame Shiba Inu. We identified a total of 13,618,261 unique SNPs in the genomes of these two breeds of dog. Using selective sweep approaches, including F ST , H p and XP-CLR with sliding windows, we identified a total of 12 genomic windows that show signatures of selection that overlap with nine genes ( PRDM16, ZNF382, ZNF461, ERGIC2, ENSCAFG00000033351, CCDC61, ALDH3A2, ENSCAFG00000011141 , and ENSCAFG00000018533 ). These results provide candidate genes and specific sites that might be associated with body size in dogs. Some of these genes are associated with body size in other mammals, but 8 of the 9 genes are novel candidate genes that need further study.

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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207