Complete chloroplast genome of <i>Gentianopsis barbata</i> and comparative analysis with related species from Gentianaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gentianopsis barbata is an essential medicinal plant in China with high ornamental and medicinal values. Unfortunately, the study of the chloroplast genome of this plant still has a gap. This study sequenced and characterized the complete chloroplast genome of G. barbata. The complete chloroplast genome of G. barbata is a typical circular structure of 151 123 bp. It consists of a large single-copy region (82 690 bp) and a small single-copy region (17 887 bp) separated by a pair of inverted repeats (25 273 bp), which covers 78 protein-coding genes, 30 tRNAs, and 4 rRNAs. The long repeat sequence analysis showed that the P-type (palindromic) sequences were the major long repeat sequences. Thirty-seven simple sequence repeats were identified, most of which were single nucleotides. The Bayesian inference tree, maximum likelihood tree, and neighbor-joining tree suggested that G. barbata is grouped with Gentianopsis grandis and Gentianopsis paludosa. The divergence time analysis showed that G. barbata diverged at 1.243 Mya. Comparative analysis of chloroplast genomes can reveal interspecific diversity, and regions with high variation can be used to develop molecular markers applicable to various research areas. Our results provide a new insight into plastome evolution and a valuable resource for further studies on G. barbata.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".