Differential karyotype profiling of three popular breeds of dogs in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation aims to study the karyology of the three most popular dog breeds as well as indigenous local dog. In this study, we identified the most popular dog breeds of the Punjab region which are maintained as companion animals, or for guarding. Metaphase plates were prepared after culturing of lymphocytes isolated from heparinized blood collected from the identified three most popular canine breeds. The isolated lymphocyte cells were cultured for 70-72 h following the cell cycle arrest at metaphase. The G-banding of the chromosomes was done by Giemsa staining through a standard protocol. The most popular three breeds of dog in the sub-tropical region were Labrador, the German Shepherd, and Pug. There were no significant distinguishable differences between the karyotypes of the dog breeds studied. This study gives insight into karyology information, which can be beneficial to the researchers, dog breeders, and kennel clubs. Moreover, it provides information about chromosomal abnormalities which may lead to the study of various fertility, growth, and phenotypic abnormalities problems in dog breeds.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".