MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1686395440 · doi:10.1139/g07-070

Investigations of 5S rDNA of <i>Vitis vinifera</i> L.: sequence analysis and physical mapping

2007· article· en· W1686395440 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Egizia Falistocco, Valentina Passeri, Gianpiero Marconi

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRegione Umbria
KeywordsBiologyTandem repeatGeneticsLocus (genetics)MicrosatelliteRibosomal DNARepeated sequenceGenotypeDirect repeatgenomic DNAVitis viniferaGeneGenomeRibosomal RNAPhylogeneticsBotanyAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we report the first results of a study of 5S rDNA of Vitis vinifera. 5S rDNA sequences from seven genotypes were amplified by PCR, cloned, and sequenced. Three types of repeats were found. Two variants, denominated long repeat and short repeat, appeared to be the main components of the 5S rDNA of this species, since they were found in all genotypes analyzed. They differed markedly from each other in both the length and the nucleotide composition of the spacers. The third variant, classified as DEL short repeat, differs from the short repeat owing to a large deletion in the spacer region. It appears to be the most recent repeat type, since it was identified in only one genotype. The organization of the 5S rDNA repeat unit variants was investigated by amplifying the genomic DNA with primers designed on the sequence of the long and short spacers. The PCR-amplified fragments showed that the long repeat is associated with the other two repeats, indicating that in V. vinifera different repeat units coexist within the same tandem array. FISH analysis demonstrated that 5S rRNA genes are localized at a single locus. The variability of 5S rDNA repeats is discussed in relation to the putative allopolyploid origin of V. vinifera.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207