MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985729039 · doi:10.1139/g02-087

Chloroplast microsatellite polymorphisms in<i>Vitis</i>species

2002· article· en· W1985729039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rosa Arroyo-García, François Lefort, M. Teresa de Andrés, Javier Ibáñez, Joaquín Borrego, N. Jouve, Félix Cabello, José M. Martı́nez-Zapater

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentro Nacional de BiotecnologíaUniversity of CreteInstituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria
KeywordsBiologyMicrosatelliteChloroplastGenomeHaplotypeChloroplast DNAGeneticsBotanyGenotypeAlleleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of consensus chloroplast microsatellites primers for dicotyledonous chloroplast genomes revealed the existence of intra and interspecific length variation within the genus Vitis. Three chloroplast microsatellite loci were found to be polymorphic in samples of Vitis vinifera, Vitis berlandieri, Vitis riparia, and Vitis rupestris out of a total of 10 consensus primer pairs tested. These polymorphisms were always due to a variable number of mononucleotide residues within A and (or) T stretches in the amplified regions. Chloroplast microsatellite polymorphisms were used to demonstrate the maternal inheritance of chloroplast in V. vinifera and to characterise the chloroplast haplotypes present in wine grape cultivars of this species grown in Spain and Greece. The different distribution of haplotype frequencies in the two ends of the Mediterranean growth area suggests the existence of independent domestication events for grapevine.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations139
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207