Comparative analysis reveals highly conserved satellite DNA landscapes in two sympatric <i>Gymnotus</i> (Teleostei, Gymnotiformes) electric knifefish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant structural and evolutionary aspects associated with satellite DNAs (satDNAs) have been uncovered through the combination of cytogenetic and genomic analysis in a wide variety of organisms. In the last few years, several complete catalogs of satDNAs (the so-called satellitomes) were characterized in fishes, and despite the presence of comparative analysis in Neotropical fishes, the order Gymnotiformes remains largely unexplored. Thus, this study aimed to present a comparative satellitome analysis for weakly electric fishes by investigating the richness of satDNA sequences in the genomes of two banded knifefishes: Gymnotus cuia and Gymnotus sylvius. Our investigations identified 72 and 66 satDNA families in G. cuia and G. sylvius, respectively, characterized by varied motif genomic expansion and a high abundance of monomers in both species. The comparative study revealed a widely shared satDNA library, identifying 40 pairwise correspondences of satDNA sequences among the species, exhibiting varied levels of sequence similarity. The chromosomal mapping of the main sequences common to the catalogs facilitated inferences regarding the structural dynamics of satDNA accumulation and distribution throughout Gymnotus. Furthermore, we incorporated a species identification method utilizing quick-FISH of GcuSat07|GSySat05, thereby facilitating the identification of these species. Our data demonstrate significant satDNA sharing between these species, reflecting the recent divergence between these two species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".