MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016138904 · doi:10.1021/jf0630116

Qualitative and Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for an Alfalfa (<i>Medicago sativa</i>)-Specific Reference Gene To Use in Monitoring Transgenic Cultivars

2007· article· en· W2016138904 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor W. Alexander, Tim Reuter, Tim A. McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicago sativaBiologyPolymerase chain reactionReal-time polymerase chain reactionGenetically modified organismGenetically modified cropsCultivarTransgeneAcetyl-CoA carboxylaseForageDNAGenePyruvate carboxylaseBotanyBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetically modified (GM) alfalfa (Medicago sativa) was marketed for the first time in 2005. For countries with established thresholds for GM plants, methods to detect and quantify their adventitious presence are required. We selected acetyl CoA carboxylase as a reference gene for the detection and quantification of GM alfalfa. Two qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays (Acc1 and Acc2) were designed to detect alfalfa. Both were specific to alfalfa, amplifying DNA from 12 separate cultivars and showing negative results for PCR of 15 nonalfalfa plants. The limits of detection for Acc1 and Acc2 were 0.2 and 0.01%, respectively. A quantitative real-time PCR assay was also designed, having high linearity (r > 0.99) over alfalfa standard concentrations ranging from 100 to 2.0 x 10(5) pg of alfalfa DNA per PCR. The real-time PCR assay was effective in quantifying alfalfa DNA from forage- and concentrate-based mixed diets containing different amounts of alfalfa meal.

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)0.001
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 score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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