Comparative Genomic Analysis of Pumpkin, Grape and Wax Gourd
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pumpkin is rich in vitamins and has high nutritional value. Sequencing of two cultivars Chinese pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata Duch.) and Indian pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima Duch.) was completed, which provided basic materials for the comparative genomic analysis of pumpkins. In this article, the wax gourd (Benincasa hispida), more conservative in the Cucurbitaceae, and the grape (Vitis vinifera L.) were used as reference genomes to carry out an in-depth analysis of the two pumpkin genomes. We confirmed that pumpkin shared cucurbit-common tetraploidization event (CCT) and Cucurbita specific tetraploidization event (CST). Through detailed genomic structure and colinearity analysis, we found that about 11% of the duplicate genes were generated by CCT, while associated with CST accounted for about 40% of the entire pumpkin genome. Using grape and wax gourd as references, the multiple genomes alignment table related to the polyploidization and species differentiation was constructed around pumpkins. In addition, polyploidy has an important contribution to the important gene families. Taking 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid synthase (ACS) is as an example, it is analyzed that different polyploidy events play different roles in its copy number changes. This study provides clear evidence of genomic homology analysis for understanding the pumpkin polyploidy process, and provides an important basis for comparative genomics for the study of pumpkin genome formation and gene evolution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".