Comparative genomic analysis of Korean and Japanese green tea trees by using molecular markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although green tea is one of the most popular beverages in many countries, the evolutionary origin of Korean and Japanese green tea trees has not been extensively elucidated in a molecular level. Lineages of the five Korean green tea populations and cultivars growing in Hadong area were examined in comparison with the six Japanese and one Chinese cultivars using phylogenetic analysis and restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis with cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence (CAPS) markers. Molecular phylogenetic analyses using the non-transcribed region (NTS) region of the 5S rRNA suggested that the Korean Hadong cultivar was a minor variant of the Korean Hadong Cheon-nyeon wild tea plant, which has grown in the Hadong area more than 800 years. RFLP analysis with CAPS markers of the genes in phenylpropanoid biosynthetic pathway showed that all of the Korean Hadong wild tea populations and cultivar had unique polymorphism patterns, when compared with those of the six Japanese and one Chinese cultivars. In addition, Hadong Cheon-nyeon wild tea showed unique CAPS patterns in the phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) locus, indicating that the three CAPS markers in the PAL gene are sufficient to distinguish Hadong Cheon-nyeon wild tea from the others. Thus, our genetic analyses suggested that the Korean Hadong Cheon-nyeon wild tea plant might have evolved as a different lineage from the other wild green tea populations in the Hadong area or the Japanese tea cultivars. Key words: Restriction fragment length polymorphism, cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence marker, green tea, Hadong wild tea, evolutionary origin
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".