MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005650888 · doi:10.1139/g03-142

Development of microsatellite markers in <i>Fragaria</i>, their use in genetic diversity analysis, and their potential for genetic linkage mapping

2004· article· en· W2005650888 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. M. Hadonou, Daniel James Sargent, Fiona Wilson, C. M. James, D. W. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of Reading
KeywordsFragariaBiologyMicrosatelliteGeneticsPloidyGenetic diversityAlleleGenetic linkagePrimer (cosmetics)Genetic markerGenePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have developed 21 new microsatellites in the model diploid perennial species Fragaria vesca from an enriched genomic library developed using F. vesca 'Ruegen'. The transferability of the primer pairs to other Fragaria species was high; all 31 primer pairs produced amplicons in 3 accessions of the octoploid strawberry Fragaria x ananassa, whereas 24 (77%) amplified a product in 7 other diploid Fragaria species. We analysed the allelic variation among 15 F. vesca accessions using the 21 microsatellites reported here and 10 F. vesca microsatellites described previously. The level of polymorphism detected at these microsatellite loci was high; five loci were monomorphic. Only two microsatellites were required to unambiguously discriminate among the 15 F. vesca accessions. A preliminary survey of segregation in an F2 progeny indicates that 20 of the 26 polymorphic loci (77%) could be mapped.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.212
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations61
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207