MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409045544 · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-04678-6

An chromosome-level haplotype-resolved genome assembly and annotation of pitaya (Selenicereus polyrhizus)

2025· article· en· W4409045544 on OpenAlexaff
Juncheng Li, Wenlong Luo, Biao Jiang, Satish Kumar, Mengfei Lin, Qingming Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsContigHaplotypeBiologyGenomeSequence assemblyGeneGeneticsReference genomeChromosomeCoding regionGene predictionComputational biologyGenotypeTranscriptome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pitaya, (Selenicereus spp.), a fruit originating from North and Central America and extensively cultivated in China and Vietnam, holds significant economic value. Utilizing PacBio HiFi sequencing and Oxford Nanopore Technologies ultra-long sequencing, aided by Hi-C data, we have assembled a chromosome-level haplotype-resolved genome. The sizes of the two haplotype genomes were determined to be 1.477 Gb (hap1, contig N50 = 133.35 Mb) and 1.442 Gb (hap2, contig N50 = 132.57 Mb), with 96.7% (hap1) and 98.4% (hap2) respectively allocated to 11 pseudochromosomes. Hap1 comprises 58.94% repeat sequences and predicts a total of 29,139 protein-coding gene models and 18,378 non-coding RNAs. Hap2 comprises 58.37% repeat sequences and predicts a total of 28,538 protein-coding gene models and 19,458 non-coding RNAs. Notably, 93.5% and 93.6% of protein-coding genes were annotated for the two haplotypes. The high-quality genome assembly presented in this study provides a valuable resource for future ecological, evolutionary, biological, and breeding research in pitaya.

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 score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207