Bioinformatic and fine-scale chromosomal mapping uncover the essence and evolution of eliminated chromosomes in the Japanese hagfish, <i>Eptatretus burgeri</i> , through repetitive DNA family analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the Japanese hagfish, Eptatretus burgeri , approximately 21% of the genomic DNA in germ cells (2n=52) consists of 16 chromosomes (eliminated [E]-chromosomes) that are eliminated from presumptive somatic cells (2n=36). To uncover the eliminated genome (E-genome), we have identified 16 eliminated repetitive DNA families from eight hagfish species, with 11 of these repeats being selectively amplified in the germline genome of E. burgeri . Furthermore, we have demonstrated that six of these sequences, namely EEEb1–6, are exclusively localized on all 16 E-chromosomes. This has led to the hypothesis that the eight pairs of E-chromosomes are derived from one pair of ancestral chromosomes via multiple duplication events over a prolonged evolutionary period. NGS analysis has recently facilitated the re-assembly of two distinct draft genomes of E. burgeri , derived from the testis and liver. This advancement allows for the prediction of not only nonrepetitive eliminated sequences but also over 100 repetitive and eliminated sequences, accomplished through K-mer-based analysis. In this study, we report four novel eliminated repetitive DNA sequences (designated as EEEb7–10) and confirm the relative chromosomal localization of all eliminated repeats (EEEb1–10) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). With the exception of EEEb10, all sequences were exclusively detected on EEEb1-positive chromosomes. Surprisingly, EEEb10 was detected as an intense signal on EEEb1-positive chromosomes and as a scattered signal on other chromosomes in germ cells. The study further divided the eight pairs of E-chromosomes into six groups based on the signal distribution of each DNA family, and fiber-FISH experiments showed that the EEEb2–10 family was dispersed in the EEEb1-positive extended chromatin fiber. These findings provide new insights into the mechanisms underlying chromosome elimination and the evolution of E-chromosomes, supporting our previous hypothesis.
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".