Evolutionary Traits in Domestic and Wild Chickens Through Phylogenetic Markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study mainly aims to analyze the evolutionary differences between chickens and wild chickens. We focus on the morphological, physiological, behavioral and genetic changes during the domestication process. Some commonly used tools in research include whole-genome SNPS, mitochondrial DNA and microsatellites, etc. These can help us observe the differentiation and gene exchange between domestic chickens and wild free-range chickens. It was found that domestic chickens exhibited distinct domesticated characteristics in terms of body size, feather color, breeding season, metabolism and response to humans. These changes are closely related to some key genes, such as TSHR, BCO2 and IGF1. In addition, the genes of domestic chickens are also mixed with components from other wild species such as the grey pheasant, making their genetic background more diverse. Phylogenetic analysis also indicates that the domestication and spread of domestic chickens were not accomplished in one go, but rather involved multiple origins and complex gene exchanges, which is why there are significant differences among domestic chicken breeds in different regions. The purpose of this review is to better understand the mechanism and genetic basis of domestic chicken domestication, and also to provide some references for poultry breeding and conservation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".