MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012626959 · doi:10.1139/b08-097

Genetic diversity and relationships among<i>Prunus cerasifera</i>(cherry plum) clones

2008· article· en· W2012626959 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aniko A. Horvath, Hélène Christmann, Frédéric Laigret

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySubspeciesPrunusGenetic diversityBotanyMicrosatellitePloidyLocus (genetics)AlleleGeneticsGeneZoologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prunus cerasifera (Ehrh.) (cherry or Myrobalan plum) is a diverse species with several recognized subspecies and natural forms. It is used as rootstock or as an ornamental tree, and is considered to be one progenitor of the garden plum ( Prunus domestica L.). This study considers the genetic relationships among different P. cerasifera clones, including horticultural cultivars. Twenty nine P. cerasifera accessions of the Prunus Genetic Resources Collection of INRA were analysed using morphological traits, maternally inherited chloroplastic DNA (cpDNA) markers, and biparentally inherited microsatellite (SSR) markers. Ploidy information was obtained by flow cytometry. Multiple factorial correspondence analysis of morphological descriptors shows important differences between some clones, but most of the samples are grouped. Fifteen haplotypes of cpDNA were identified and clustered into three groups after statistical parsimony analysis. SSR markers revealed a total of 74 alleles, with a mean value of 10.6 alleles per locus. After analysis of ploidy level, P. cerasifera subsp. caspica was shown to have a hexaploid genome. Morphological and molecular data suggest that the taxonomic classification of some subspecies and of P. cerasifera subsp. caspica may need to be revised after analysis of additional individuals.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207