Genetic diversity analysis of Inner Mongolia cashmere goats (Erlangshan subtype) based on whole genome re-sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inner Mongolia cashmere goat (IMCG), renowned for its superior cashmere quality, is a Chinese indigenous goat breed that has been developed through natural and artificial selection over a long period. However, recently, the genetic resources of IMCGs have been significantly threatened by the introduction of cosmopolitan goat breeds and the absence of adequate breed protection systems. RESULTS: In order to assess the conservation effectiveness of IMCGs and efficiently preserve and utilize the purebred germplasm resources, this study analyzed the genetic diversity, kinship, family structure, and inbreeding of IMCGs utilizing resequencing data from 225 randomly selected individuals analyzed using the Plink (v.1.90), GCTA (v.1.94.1), and R (v.4.2.1) software. A total of 12,700,178 high-quality SNPs were selected through quality control from 34,248,064 SNP sites obtained from 225 individuals. The average minor allele frequency (MAF), polymorphic information content (PIC), and Shannon information index (SHI) were 0.253, 0.284, and 0.530, respectively. The average observed heterozygosity (Ho) and the average expected heterozygosity (He) were 0.355 and 0.351, respectively. The analysis of the identity by state distance matrix and genomic relationship matrix has shown that most individuals' genetic distance and genetic relationship are far away, and the inbreeding coefficient is low. The family structure analysis identified 10 families among the 23 rams. A total of 14,109 runs of homozygosity (ROH) were identified in the 225 individuals, with an average ROH length of 1014.547 kb. The average inbreeding coefficient, calculated from ROH, was 0.026 for the overall population and 0.027 specifically among the 23 rams, indicating a low level of inbreeding within the conserved population. CONCLUSIONS: The IMCGs exhibited moderate polymorphism and a low level of kinship with inbreeding occurring among a limited number of individuals. Simultaneously, it is necessary to prevent the loss of bloodline to guarantee the perpetuation of the IMCGs' germplasm resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 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".