MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1774276754 · doi:10.3126/ijasbt.v3i3.12891

DNA extraction technique for different rice varieties grown in Sri Lanka

2015· article· en· W1774276754 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ranganathan Kapilan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Sciences and Biotechnology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsDNA extractionDNASri lankaExtraction (chemistry)ChromatographyAgaroseBiotechnologyBiologyMathematicsChemistryPolymerase chain reactionEnvironmental scienceGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extraction of DNA is very important nowadays in bio-molecular researches. Extracted DNA should be purified and the quality of DNA should also be very high. The objective of the study was to develop a simple efficient method to isolate DNA from the rice varieties in an open laboratory environment, and to eliminate the usage of expensive chemicals and tools. The DNA extraction methods developed by the DNeasy plant kit method supplied by QIAGEN, Cheng et al., Doyle et al. and Michiels et al. were applied to five different rice varieties grown in different parts of Sri Lanka. Based on the quantity and quality of the extracted DNA tested by measuring the absorbance of DNA at 260 nm using Nanodrop® ND-1000 spectrophotometer and measuring the ratio of A260 / A280 and gel running on agarose, the efficiency of the extraction method chosen varied among rice varieties. Among the methods used, the methods introduced by DNeasy plant kit method supplied by QIAGEN and Cheng et al, yielded good and amplifiable quality DNA with satisfactory concentration for all the rice varieties tested. Therefore the modified method of Cheng et al, 1987 could be used to extract DNA from rice varieties instead of the commercially available expensive and hazardous DNeasy plant kit method supplied by QIAGEN.Int J Appl Sci Biotechnol, Vol 3(3): 398-401

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied Sciences and BiotechnologySame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207