A Comparative Study of Genetic Diversity in Wild and Domestic Water Buffalo Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buffalo are important livestock animals, and their genetic diversity plays a key role in species evolution, farm production, and future breeding. Wild buffalo ( Bubalus arnee ) and domestic buffalo ( Bubalus bubalis ) show clear lineage differences and have a complex evolutionary history. Domestic buffalo are mainly divided into two groups: river type and swamp type. In this study, we used mitochondrial DNA, microsatellite markers, SNP data, and whole-genome sequencing to compare the genetic diversity of wild and domestic buffalo. Because of habitat loss and small population size, wild buffalo now show lower genetic diversity and stronger inbreeding. Domestic buffalo have been shaped by long-term human selection, so their population structure is different. River-type buffalo have been strongly selected for milk traits, while swamp-type buffalo still keep high geographic separation and more uniform physical features. Genomic analysis also shows clear signals of domestication and artificial selection, including several selection sweep regions. We also found gene flow at different levels between river and swamp types, and between domestic buffalo and wild buffalo. This study points out that protecting the wild buffalo gene pool is very important. It also suggests that breeding programs for domestic buffalo should maintain genetic diversity, make good use of genomic selection, and improve hybrid strategies. These results can support future buffalo breeding, resource management, and biodiversity 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".