Insights from the genomes of 4 diploid <i>Camelina</i> spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant evolution has been a complex process involving hybridization and polyploidization making understanding the origin and evolution of a plant's genome challenging even once a published genome is available. The oilseed crop, Camelina sativa (Brassicaceae), has a fully sequenced allohexaploid genome with 3 unknown ancestors. To better understand which extant species best represent the ancestral genomes that contributed to C. sativa's formation, we sequenced and assembled chromosome level draft genomes for 4 diploid members of Camelina: C. neglecta C. hispida var. hispida, C. hispida var. grandiflora, and C. laxa using long and short read data scaffolded with proximity data. We then conducted phylogenetic analyses on regions of synteny and on genes described for Arabidopsis thaliana, from across each nuclear genome and the chloroplasts to examine evolutionary relationships within Camelina and Camelineae. We conclude that C. neglecta is closely related to C. sativa's sub-genome 1 and that C. hispida var. hispida and C. hispida var. grandiflora are most closely related to C. sativa's sub-genome 3. Further, the abundance and density of transposable elements, specifically Helitrons, suggest that the progenitor genome that contributed C. sativa's sub-genome 3 maybe more similar to the genome of C. hispida var. hispida than that of C. hispida var. grandiflora. These diploid genomes show few structural differences when compared to C. sativa's genome indicating little change to chromosome structure following allopolyploidization. This work also indicates that C. neglecta and C. hispida are important resources for understanding the genetics of C. sativa and potential resources for crop improvement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".