MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988537415 · doi:10.1139/g02-094

Length and sequence heterogeneity in 5S rDNA of<i>Populus deltoides</i>

2002· article· en· W1988537415 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Madan Singh Negi, Jyothi Rajagopal, Neeti Chauhan, Richard Cronn, Malathi Lakshmikumaran

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry
KeywordsBiologyMicrosatelliteInternal transcribed spacerGeneticsTandem repeatGenomeRibosomal DNAInverted repeatRibosomal RNAGenePhylogeneticsAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 5S rRNA genes and their associated non-transcribed spacer (NTS) regions are present as repeat units arranged in tandem arrays in plant genomes. Length heterogeneity in 5S rDNA repeats was previously identified in Populus deltoides and was also observed in the present study. Primers were designed to amplify the 5S rDNA NTS variants from the P. deltoides genome. The PCR-amplified products from the two accessions of P. deltoides (G3 and G48) suggested the presence of length heterogeneity of 5S rDNA units within and among accessions, and the size of the spacers ranged from 385 to 434 bp. Sequence analysis of the non-transcribed spacer (NTS) revealed two distinct classes of 5S rDNA within both accessions: class 1, which contained GAA trinucleotide microsatellite repeats, and class 2, which lacked the repeats. The class 1 spacer shows length variation owing to the microsatellite, with two clones exhibiting 10 GAA repeat units and one clone exhibiting 16 such repeat units. However, distance analysis shows that class 1 spacer sequences are highly similar inter se, yielding nucleotide diversity (pi) estimates that are less than 0.15% of those obtained for class 2 spacers (pi = 0.0183 vs. 0.1433, respectively). The presence of microsatellite in the NTS region leading to variation in spacer length is reported and discussed for the first time in P. deltoides.

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 score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.221
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

Citations52
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207