MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993981625 · doi:10.1139/g05-109

Characterization of chromosome-specific S-SAP markers and their use in studying genetic diversity in <i>Aegilops</i> species

2006· article· en· W1993981625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
É. Nagy, István Molnár, A. Schneider, G. Kovács, Márta Molnár‐Láng

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsBiologyAegilopsGeneticsGenetic diversityChromosomeEvolutionary biologyGenetic markerGenomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The short interspersed nuclear element (SINE), Au, was used to develop sequence-specific amplified polymorphism (S-SAP) markers for U- and M-genome chromosomes. The markers were localized using Triticum aestivum (wheat)-- Aegilops geniculata and wheat-- Aegilops biuncialis disomic chromosome addition lines. Thirty-seven markers distributed over 6 U and 6 M chromosomes were produced. A genetic diversity study carried out on 37 accessions from Ae. biuncialis, Ae. comosa, Ae. geniculata, and Ae. umbellulata suggested that Ae. biuncialis have arisen from its diploid ancestors more recently than Ae. geniculata. Several earlier studies indicated that the M genomes in polyploid Aegilops species had accumulated substantial rearrangements, whereas the U genomes remained essentially unmodified. However, this cannot be attributed to the preferential insertion of retroelements into the M genome chromosomes. Fourteen markers from a total of 8 chromosomes were sequenced; 3 markers were similar to known plant genes, 1 was derived from a long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposon, and 10 markers did not match to any known DNA sequences, suggesting that they were located in the highly variable intergenic regions.

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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207