MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999978185 · doi:10.1021/jf0347463

Method for the Detection of Synthetic <i>cry3A</i> in Transgenic Potatoes

2004· article· en· W1999978185 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna S. Smith, Philip W. Maxwell, S. H. De Boer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service
KeywordsCultivarBiologyAmpliconPEST analysisHorticulturePolymerase chain reactionFood scienceGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All transgenic cultivars of potatoes registered in Canada and the United States have been modified to express a synthetic cry3A gene as a means of conferring resistance against the Colorado potato beetle, an important economic pest of potatoes. A PCR method was developed to amplify a 499 bp region of the synthetic cry3A gene. Using this method, synthetic cry3A could be detected in six different transgenic cultivars. Positive results could be confirmed with PvuII restriction digestion of the PCR-generated amplicon, which resulted in two fragments that were 283 and 216 bp in size. Of the 52 tuber extracts tested with this method, no false positive or false negative results were obtained, suggesting the method could be used with a high degree of accuracy. The absolute limit of detection was the number of cry3A copies present in one or perhaps two haploid copies of the potato genome. The practical limit of detection in tubers on a fresh weight basis was 0.02% for the NL 10-SUP and 0.01% for the remaining cultivars. Synthetic cry3A could also be detected in processed food products such as potato chips, shoestring potatoes, and frozen French fries. The method was suitable for screening potato tuber lots and some processed foods for the presence of synthetic cry3A.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207