MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1886698076 · doi:10.1017/s1479262115000325

Phylogenetic analysis of wheat cultivars in Kazakhstan based on the wheat 90 K single nucleotide polymorphism array

2015· article· en· W1886698076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yerlan Turuspekov, Joerg Plieske, Martin W. Ganal, Eduard Akhunov, Сауле Абугалиева

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Genetic Resources · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismCultivarGenetic diversitySNPSNP arrayGeneticsBotanyGenotypeGenePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent introduction of Illumina single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays is an important step towards comprehensive genome-wide studies of genetic diversity in wheat. In this study, 90 cultivars of hexaploid spring wheat growing in Kazakhstan were genotyped using the high-density wheat 90 K Illumina SNP array. The analysis allowed the identification of 30,288 polymorphic SNPs. A subset of 3541 high-quality SNPs were used for a comparison of 690 wheat accessions representing landraces and varieties, including those from Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, Kazakhstan, USA and other parts of the world. Phylogenetic analysis showed a clear separation of wheat cultivars according to their geographic origin. In the phylogenetic tree, accessions from Kazakhstan and the USA formed two neighbouring clusters with a common node, and they were distinct from accessions from other regions of the world, including Europe. The results provide important new insights into the genetic relationships between diverse wheat accessions.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Genetic ResourcesSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207