<i>Cerastoderma</i><i>glaucum</i>5S ribosomal DNA: characterization of the repeat unit, divergence with respect to<i>Cerastoderma edule</i>, and PCR–RFLPs for the identification of both cockles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 5S rDNA repeat unit of the cockle Cerastoderma glaucum from the Mediterranean and Baltic coasts was PCR amplified and sequenced. The length of the units was 539-568 bp, of which 120 bp were assigned to the 5S rRNA gene and 419-448 bp to the spacer region, and the G/C content was 46%-49%, 54%, and 44%-47%, respectively. Two types of units (A and B), differing in the spacer, were distinguished based on the percentage of differences and clustering in phylogenetic trees. A PCR assay with specific primers for each unit type indicated that the occurrence of both units is not restricted to the sequenced individuals. The 5S rDNA units of C. glaucum were compared with new and previously reported sequences of Cerastoderma edule. The degree of variation observed in C. edule was lower than that in C. glaucum and evidence for the existence of units A and B in C. edule was not found. The two cockles have the same coding region but displayed numerous fixed differences in the spacer region and group separately in the phylogenetic trees. Digestion of the 5S rDNA PCR product with the restriction enzymes HaeIII and EcoRV revealed two RFLPs useful for cockle identification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".