MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1878401641 · doi:10.1002/zoo.21225

Comparison of the genetic variation of captive ring‐tailed lemurs with a wild population in Madagascar

2015· article· en· W1878401641 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Pastorini, Michelle L. Sauther, Robert W. Sussman, Lisa Gould, Frank P. Cuozzo, Prithiviraj Fernando, Caroline M. Nievergelt, Nicholas I. Mundy

Bibliographic record

VenueZoo Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersA.H. Schultz-Stiftung zur Förderung Primatologischer ForschungCleveland Zoological SocietyPrimate ConservationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungVontobel-StiftungNational Geographic SocietyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyLemur cattaPopulationCaptivityGenetic diversityLemurCaptive breedingZoologyGenetic variationMicrosatelliteEcologyPrimateDemographyGeneticsEndangered speciesAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic variability among captive and wild ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) was assessed using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA data. A 529 bp segment of mtDNA was sequenced and 9 microsatellite loci were genotyped for 286 ring-tailed lemurs. Samples were obtained from the well-studied L. catta population at the Bezà Mahafaly Special Reserve and from captive animals at six institutions worldwide. We found evidence of possible patrilineal contribution but the absence of matrilineal contribution from the Bezà area, and haplotypes not found in Bezà but present in Ambohimahavelona, Andringitra Massif, and other unknown locations, in the sampled captive population, indicating that the founders of the captive population originated from a wide geographic range. Total genetic variation and relatedness in captive L. catta in the six institutions were similar in extent to that of the wild population in Bezà. Based on the diverse origins of the captive population founders our results suggest the erosion of genetic diversity in the captive population. Sampled individuals from the same institution were more closely related to each other than members of a social group in the wild. Individuals housed at different institutions were less closely related than those of different social groups at Bezà, indicating lower genetic exchange between captive institutions than between social groups in a locality in the wild. Our findings underscore the usefulness of genotyping in determining the geographic origin of captive population founders, obtaining pedigree information if paternity is uncertain, and in maximizing preservation of extant genetic diversity in captivity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoo BiologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207