MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987076111 · doi:10.1139/g03-030

Analysis of genetic diversity in red clover (<i>Trifolium pratense</i>L.) breeding populations as revealed by RAPD genetic markers

2003· article· en· W1987076111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Odeth Ulloa, Fernando Ortega, Hugo Campos

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRAPDGenetic diversityAnalysis of molecular varianceGenetic variationPopulationGermplasmRed CloverGenetic distanceGene poolGenetic variabilityGenetic structureGeneticsBotanyGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red clover is an important forage legume species for temperate regions and very little is known about the genetic organization of its breeding populations. We used random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) genetic markers to address the genetic diversity and the distribution of variation in 20 breeding populations and cultivars from Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Switzerland. Genetic distances were calculated for all possible pairwise combinations. A high level of polymorphism was found and the proportion of polymorphic loci across populations was 74.2%. A population derived from a non-certified seedlot displayed a higher proportion of polymorphic loci than its respective certified seedlot. Gene diversity values and population genetics parameters suggest that the populations analyzed are diverse. An analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) revealed that the largest proportion of variation (80.4%) resides at the within population level. RAPD markers are a useful tool for red clover breeding programs. A dendrogram based on genetic distances divided the breeding populations analyzed into three distinct groups. The amount and partition of diversity observed can be of value in identifying the populations that parents of synthetic cultivars are derived from and to exploit the variation available in the populations analyzed.

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 score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations51
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207