MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012988023 · doi:10.1139/g01-153

High-throughput targeted SSR marker development in peach (<i>Prunus persica</i>)

2002· article· en· W2012988023 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ying Wang, Laura L. Georgi, G.L. Reighard, Ralph Scorza, Albert G. Abbott

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrunusBiologyAmplified fragment length polymorphismMicrosatelliteGeneticsGenetic markerLocus (genetics)GeneQuantitative trait locusComputational biologyBotanyGenetic diversityAllelePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simple sequence repeats (SSRs) have proven to be highly polymorphic, easily reproducible, codominant markers. However, developing an SSR map is very time consuming and expensive, and most SSRs are not specifically linked to gene loci of immediate interest. The ideal situation would be to combine a high-throughput, relatively inexpensive mapping technique with rapid identification of SSR loci in mapped regions of interest. For this reason, we coupled the high-throughput technique of AFLP mapping with subsequent direct targeting of SSRs identified in AFLP-marked regions of interest. This approach relied on the availability of peach bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library resources. We present examples of using this strategy to rapidly identify SSR loci tightly linked to two important, simply inherited traits in peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch): root-knot nematode resistance and control of the evergrowing trait. SSRs developed in this study were also tested for their transportability in other Prunus species and in apricots.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations87
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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