Enriched tandem repeats in chromosomal fusion points of <i>Rineloricaria latirostris</i> (Boulenger, 1900) (Siluriformes: Loricariidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cytogenetic data showed the enrichment of repetitive DNAs in chromosomal rearrangement points between closely related species in armored catfishes. Still, few studies integrated cytogenetic and genomic data aiming to identify their prone-to-break DNA sites. Here, we aimed to obtain the repetitive fraction in Rineloricaria latirostris to recognize the microsatellite and homopolymers flanking the regions previously described as chromosomal fusion points. The results indicated that repetitive DNAs in R. latirostris are predominantly DNA transposons, and considering the microsatellite and homopolymers, A/T-rich expansions were the most abundant. The in situ localization demonstrated the A/T-rich repetitive sequences were scattered on the chromosomes, while A/G-rich microsatellite units were accumulated in some regions. The DNA transposon hAT, the 5S rDNA, and 45S rDNA (previously identified in Robertsonian fusion points in R. latirostris) were clusterized with some microsatellites, especially (CA) n, (GA) n, and poly-A, which were also enriched in regions of chromosomal fusions. Our findings demonstrated that repetitive sequences such as rDNAs, hAT transposons, and microsatellite units flank probable evolutionary breakpoint regions in R. latirostris. However, due to the sequence unit homologies in different chromosomal sites, these repeat DNAs only may facilitate chromosome fusion events in R. latirostris rather than working as a double-strand breakpoint site.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".