MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Can we stop transgenes from taking a walk on the wild side?

2008· letter· en· W2009487015 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katrina M. Dlugosch, Jeannette Whitton

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTransgeneContext (archaeology)BiotechnologyPopulationTraitResistance (ecology)CanolaGeneticsAgronomyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether the potential costs associated with broad-scale use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) outweigh possible benefits is highly contentious, including within the scientific community. Even among those generally in favour of commercialization of GM crops, there is nonetheless broad recognition that transgene escape into the wild should be minimized. But is it possible to achieve containment of engineered genetic elements in the context of large scale agricultural production? In a previous study, Warwick et al. (2003) documented transgene escape via gene flow from herbicide resistant (HR) canola (Brassica napus) into neighbouring weedy B. rapa populations (Fig. 1) in two agricultural fields in Quebec, Canada. In a follow-up study in this issue of Molecular Ecology, Warwick et al. (2008) show that the transgene has persisted and spread within the weedy population in the absence of selection for herbicide resistance. Certainly a trait like herbicide resistance is expected to spread when selected through the use of the herbicide, despite potentially negative epistatic effects on fitness. However, Warwick et al.'s findings suggest that direct selection favouring the transgene is not required for its persistence. So is there any hope of preventing transgene escape into the wild?

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207