MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980105515 · doi:10.1139/g04-102

Genome relationships in polyploid<i>Poa pratensis</i>and other<i>Poa</i>species inferred from phylogenetic analysis of nuclear and chloroplast DNA sequences

2005· article· en· W1980105515 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jason T. Patterson, Steven R. Larson, Paul G. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUtah State UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyPolyploidChloroplast DNAGenomeNuclear geneGeneticsNuclear DNAPhylogenetic treeNdhFPoa pratensisPhylogeneticsGeneGenusBotanyEvolutionary biologyMitochondrial DNAPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Poa comprises approximately 500 species that occur throughout the world, including the widely grown Kentucky bluegrass (P. pratensis L.). Hybridization and polyploidization have played a prominent role in the evolution of this complex genus, but limited information is available regarding genome relationships in Poa. Thus, we amplified, cloned, and compared the DNA sequences of 2 nuclear genes (CDO504 and thioredoxin-like protein) and 2 chloroplast genome loci (ndhF and trnT-trnF) from 22 Poa species. Four distinct classes of sequences corresponding to 4 putative homoeologous loci from each nuclear gene were found within polyploid P. pratensis. Nuclear sequences from 15 other Poa species were found to group with at least 1 P. pratensis homoeolog, whereas 6 species displayed sequences not present in P. pratensis. The nuclear genome phylogenies presented here show the first evidence of diverse and related genomes in the genus Poa.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207