MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388857549 · doi:10.1093/jhered/esad070

A chromosome-level genome assembly for the smoky rubyspot damselfly (<i>Hetaerina titia</i>)

2023· article· en· W4388857549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christophe Patterson, Erandi Bonillas-Monge, Adrian C. Brennan, Gregory F. Grether, Luis Mendoza‐Cuenca, Rachel Tucker, Yesenia Margarita Vega‐Sánchez, Jonathan P. Drury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heredity · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSecretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos NaturalesDurham UniversityNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDamselflyBiologyOdonataEvolutionary biologyGenomeEcologySequence assemblyArthropodInterspecific competitionZoologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoky rubyspot damselflies (Hetaerina titia Drury, 1773) are one of the most commonly encountered odonates along streams and rivers on both slopes of Central America and the Atlantic drainages in the United States and southern Canada. Owing to their highly variable wing pigmentation, they have become a model system for studying sexual selection and interspecific behavioral interference. Here, we sequence and assemble the genome of a female smoky rubyspot. Of the primary assembly (i.e. the principle pseudohaplotype), 98.8% is made up of 12 chromosomal pseudomolecules (2N = 22A + X). There are 75 scaffolds in total, an N50 of 120 Mb, a contig-N50 of 0.64 Mb, and a high arthropod BUSCO score [C: 97.6% (S: 97.3%, D: 0.3%), F: 0.8%, M: 1.6%]. We then compare our assembly to that of the blue-tailed damselfly genome (Ischnura elegans), the most complete damselfly assembly to date, and a recently published assembly for an American rubyspot damselfly (Hetaerina americana). Collectively, these resources make Hetaerina a genome-enabled genus for further studies of the ecological and evolutionary forces shaping biological diversity.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HereditySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207