MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285794156 · doi:10.1139/gen-2021-0122

Comparative analysis reveals chromosome number reductions in the evolution of African bermudagrass (<i>Cynodon transvaalensis</i> Burtt-Davy)

2022· article· en· W4285794156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuhao Yu, Hongxu Dong, Tilin Fang, Yanqi Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOklahoma Agricultural Experiment StationU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyCynodon dactylonCynodonGenomePloidyBotanyChromosomeGeneticsSubfamilyGenusTribeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

African bermudagrass ( Cynodon transvaalensis Burtt-Davy) (2n = 2x = 18) belongs to the genus Cynodon, tribe Cynodonteae, subfamily Chloridoideae in the grass family Poaceae. The species is frequently crossed with common bermudagrass ( Cynodon dactylon Pers.) in developing high-quality hybrid turf cultivars. Molecular resources for C. transvaalensis are scarce; thus, its genomic evolution is unknown. Recently, a linkage map consisting of 1278 markers provided a powerful tool for African bermudagrass genomic research. The objective of this study was to investigate chromosome number reduction events that resulted in the nine haploid chromosomes in this species. Tag sequences of mapped single nucleotide polymorphism markers in C. transvaalensis were compared against genome sequences of Oropetium thomaeum (L.f.) Trin. (2n = 2x = 20), a genomic model in the Cynodonteae tribe. The comparative genomic analyses revealed broad collinearity between the genomes of these two species. The analyses further revealed that two major interchromosomal rearrangements of the paleochromosome ρ12 (ρ1–ρ12–ρ1 and ρ6–ρ12–ρ6) resulted in nine chromosomes in the genome of C. transvaalensis. The findings provide novel information regarding the formation of the initial diploid species in the Cynodon genus.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207