MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396899378 · doi:10.1016/j.ygeno.2024.110859

Assembly and comparative analysis of the complete mitochondrial genome of white towel gourd (Luffa cylindrica)

2024· article· en· W4396899378 on OpenAlexaff
Yihui Gong, Xuan Luo, Ting Zhang, Guihua Zhou, Jingyi Li, Bin Zhang, Peng Li, Hua Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenomics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hunan Province
KeywordsBiologyGenomeGeneticsGeneMitochondrial DNAPhylogenetic treePseudogeneGourd

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitochondria play an important role in the energy production of plant cells through independent genetic systems. This study has aimed to assemble and annotate the functions of the mitochondrial (mt) genome of Luffa cylindrica . The mt genome of L. cylindrica contained two chromosomes with lengths of 380,879 bp and 67,982 bp, respectively. Seventy-seven genes including 39 protein-coding genes, 34 tRNA genes, 3 rRNA genes, and 1 pseudogene, were identified. About 90.63% of the codons ended with A or U bases, and 98.63% of monomers contained A/T, which contributed to the high A/T content (55.91%) of the complete mt genome. Six genes ( ATP8, CCMFC, NAD4, RPL10, RPL5 and RPS 4) showed positive selection. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that L. cylindrica is closely related to L. acutangula . The present results provide the mt genome of L. cylindrica , which may facilitate possible genetic variation, evolutionary, and molecular breeding studies of L. cylindrica . • We assembled and annotated the functions for the mitochondrial genome of Luffa cylindrica . • We found that 90.63% codons ended with A or U base. • We found that six genes, including ATP8, CCMFC, NAD4, RPL10, RPL5 and RPS 4 exhibited positive selection. • A phylogenetic analysis showed that Luffa cylindrica was closely related to Luffa acutangula.

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)0.000
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 score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomicsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207