MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975476762 · doi:10.1139/g01-078

Maternal inheritance of the chloroplast genome in<i>Eucalyptus globulus</i>and interspecific hybrids

2001· article· en· W1975476762 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gay E. McKinnon, René E. Vaillancourt, Paul Tilyard, BM Potts

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsChloroplast DNABiologyHybridInterspecific competitionNon-Mendelian inheritanceOutcrossingEucalyptus globulusPollenBotanyChloroplastIntrogressionEucalyptusGeneticsEvolutionary biologyMitochondrial DNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utility of chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) in Eucalyptus, either as a molecular marker for genetic studies or as a potential vehicle for genetic manipulation, is based on knowledge of its mode of inheritance. Chloroplast inheritance in angiosperms can vary among and within species, and anomalous inheritance has been reported in some interspecific-hybrid combinations. In Eucalyptus, abnormalities of pollen-tube growth occur in a number of interspecific-hybrid combinations, and this might increase the likelihood of anomalous chloroplast transmission. We used a rapid PCR technique to determine chloroplast heritability in 425 progeny of Eucalyptus, comprising 194 progeny of the premier pulpwood species E. globulus and 231 interspecific hybrids between E. globulus and E. nitens (F1, F2, and backcrosses). At this sampling intensity, no pollen-mediated transmission of cpDNA was found in any of the 40 families tested. The results are discussed with reference to chloroplast engineering and the use of cpDNA as a seed-specific marker in phylogeographic studies of Eucalyptus.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations54
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207