MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968410589 · doi:10.1139/g03-105

Nuclear and chloroplast DNA differentiation in Andean potatoes

2004· article· en· W1968410589 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thitaporn Sukhotu, Osamu Kamijima, Kazuyoshi Hosaka

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Tsukuba
KeywordsBiologyChloroplast DNAHaplotypeRestriction fragment length polymorphismMicrosatelliteGeneticsNuclear DNAGenetic markerDNAGenotypeGeneGenomeAlleleMitochondrial DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over 3500 accessions of Andean landraces have been known in potato, classified into 7 cultivated species ranging from 2x to 5x (Hawkes 1990). Chloroplast DNA (ctDNA), distinguished into T, W, C, S, and A types, showed extensive overlaps in their frequencies among cultivated species and between cultivated and putative ancestral wild species. In this study, 76 accessions of cultivated and 19 accessions of wild species were evaluated for ctDNA types and examined by ctDNA high-resolution markers (ctDNA microsatellites and H3 marker) and nuclear DNA restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs). ctDNA high-resolution markers identified 25 different ctDNA haplotypes. The S- and A-type ctDNAs were discriminated as unique haplotypes from 12 haplotypes having C-type ctDNA and T-type ctDNA from 10 haplotypes having W-type ctDNA. Differences among ctDNA types were strongly correlated with those of ctDNA high-resolution markers (r = 0.822). Differentiation between W-type ctDNA and C-, S-, and A-type ctDNAs was supported by nDNA RFLPs in most species except for those of recent or immediate hybrid origin. However, differentiation among C-, S-, and A-type ctDNAs was not clearly supported by nDNA RFLPs, suggesting that frequent genetic exchange occurred among them and (or) they shared the same gene pool owing to common ancestry.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207