Genomic Sequence Analysis of Culm Shape Variants of Moso Bamboo Based on Re-sequencing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To reveal the whole genome differences of moso bamboo variations on culm shape, Phyllostachys edulis f. obliquinoda , Phyllostachys edulis f. heterocycla , Phyllostachys pubescens f. curviculmi , Phyllostachys edulis f. tubaeformis were re-sequenced by whole genome re-sequencing, to detect and annotate the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), insertion-deletion (InDel) and structure variation (SV). The mutant genes were compared with the functional databases of GO, COG, KEGG, of which 7 477, 7 584, 7 221 and 7 583 mutant genes were annotated respectively. GO annotation classification included 56 functional groups of three functional classification systems: cellular component, molecular function and biological processes. COG classification showed that 369 genes involved in replication, recombination and repair, 327 genes involved in signal transduction mechanism, and 253 genes involved in transcription. The metabolic pathways of flavonoids, carotenoids and other substances involved in the mutant genes were analyzed by KEGG database. In-depth study of the regulatory pathways can provide a theoretical basis for further exploration of the rich polymorphism and genetic variation of moso bamboo, and the development of molecular markers for some significant characters.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it