Chromosome-level assembly of the Rangifer tarandus genome and validation of cervid and bovid evolution insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Genome assembly into chromosomes facilitates several analyses including cytogenetics, genomics and phylogenetics. Despite rapid development in bioinformatics, however, assembly beyond scaffolds remains challenging, especially in species without closely related well-assembled and available reference genomes. So far, four draft genomes of Rangifer tarandus (caribou or reindeer, a circumpolar distributed cervid species) have been published, but none with chromosome-level assembly. This emblematic northern species is of high interest in ecological studies and conservation since most populations are declining. Results We have designed specific probes based on Oligopaint FISH technology to upgrade the latest published reindeer and caribou chromosome-level genomes. Using this oligonucleotide-based method, we found six mis-assembled scaffolds and physically mapped 68 of the largest scaffolds representing 78% of the most recent R. tarandus genome assembly. Combining physical mapping and comparative genomics, it was possible to document chromosomal evolution among Cervidae and closely related bovids. Conclusions Our results provide validation for the current chromosome-level genome assembly as well as resources to use chromosome banding in studies of Rangifer tarandus.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".