Understanding microchromosomal organization and evolution in four representative woodpeckers (Picidae, Piciformes) through BAC-FISH analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genome organization of woodpeckers has several distinctive features e.g., an uncommon accumulation of repetitive sequences, enlarged Z chromosomes, and atypical diploid numbers. Despite the large diversity of species, there is a paucity of detailed cytogenomic studies for this group and we thus aimed to rectify this. Genome organization patterns and hence evolutionary change in the microchromosome formation of four species ( Colaptes campestris, Veniliornis spilogaster, Melanerpes candidus, and Picumnus nebulosus) was established through fluorescence in situ hybridization using bacterial artificial chromosomes originally derived from Gallus gallus and Taeniopygia guttata. Findings suggest that P. nebulosus (2 n = 110), which was described for the first time, had the most basal karyotype among species of Picidae studied here, and probably arose as a result of fissions of avian ancestral macrochromosomes. We defined a new chromosomal number for V. spilogaster (2 n = 88) and demonstrated microchromosomal rearrangements involving C. campestris plus a single, unique hitherto undescribed rearrangement in V. spilogaster. This comprised an inversion after a fusion involving the ancestral microchromosome 12 (homologous to chicken microchromosome 12). We also determined that the low diploid number of M. candidus is related to microchromosome fusions. Woodpeckers thus exhibit significantly rearranged karyotypes compared to the putative ancestral karyotype.
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".