MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7074032592

Elucidating the major hidden genomic components of the A, C, and AC genomes and their influence on Brassica evolution

2017· article· en· W7074032592 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueProdinra (INRA Bordeaux-Aquitaine) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber Optics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomeComparative genomicsBrassica rapaGenomicsBrassica oleraceaReference genomeGenome projectGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decoding complete genome sequences is prerequisite for comprehensive genomics studies. However, the currently available reference genome sequences of Brassica rapa (A genome), B. oleracea (C) and B. napus (AC) cover 391, 540, and 850 Mbp and represent 80.6, 85.7, and 75.2% of the estimated genome size, respectively, while remained are hidden or unassembled due to highly repetitive nature of these genome components. Here, we performed the first comprehensive genome-wide analysis using low-coverage whole-genome sequences to explore the hidden genome components based on characterization of major repeat families in the B. rapa and B. oleracea genomes. Our analysis revealed 10 major repeats (MRs) including a new family comprising about 18.8, 10.8, and 11.5% of the A, C and AC genomes, respectively. Nevertheless, these 10 MRs represented less than 0.7% of each assembled reference genome. Genomic survey and molecular cytogenetic analyses validates our insilico analysis and also pointed to diversity, differential distribution, and evolutionary dynamics in the three Brassica species. Overall, our work elucidates hidden portions of three Brassica genomes, thus providing a resource for understanding the complete genome structures. Furthermore, we observed that asymmetrical accumulation of the major repeats might be a cause of diversification between the A and C genomes.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProdinra (INRA Bordeaux-Aquitaine)Same topicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber OpticsFrench-language works237,207