MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W161269928 · doi:10.2144/03341st06

Extraction of PCR-Quality Plant and Microbial DNA from Total Rumen Contents

2003· article· en· W161269928 on OpenAlexaff
Ranjana Sharma, S. Jacob John, Dana Damgaard, Tim A. McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueBioTechniques · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumenDNA extractionDNABiologyPolymerase chain reactionExtraction (chemistry)PopulationBacteriaChromatographyMicrobiologyBiochemistryChemistryGeneGeneticsFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA from rumen digesta has several diagnostic applications such as studying microbial community dynamics, transgene/DNA stability, and population typing of various rumen bacteria. Several DNA extraction procedures are described in the literature for rumen digesta, which describe the removal of tannins, polysaccharides, and other PCR inhibitors. Some of these protocols are time-consuming and impractical when handling a large number of samples routinely. Here we describe a rapid method for the extraction of PCR-quality plant and microbial DNA from total rumen contents that is based on modifications in the cetyltrimethylammonium bromide procedure followed by cleanup using a Qiagen column. This procedure is highly reproducible and relatively short, once the initial grinding of the samples is performed, and it consistently yields PCR-quality DNA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioTechniquesSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207