MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028804859 · doi:10.1139/g11-021

Genome size variation in<i>Corchorus olitorius</i>(Malvaceae s.l.) and its correlation with elevation and phenotypic traits

2011· article· en· W2028804859 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Solomon Benor, Jörg Fuchs, Frank R. Blattner

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftHawassa UniversityDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsBiologyGenome sizeCorchorus olitoriusGenomeMalvaceaePloidyBotanyNuclear DNAGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we report genome size variations in Corchorus olitorius L. (Malvaceae s.l.), a crop species known for its morphological plasticity and broad geographical distribution, and Corchorus capsularis L., the second widely cultivated species in the genus. Flow cytometric analyses were conducted with several tissues and nuclei isolation buffers using 69 accessions of C. olitorius and 4 accessions of C. capsularis, representing different habitats and geographical origins. The mean 2C nuclear DNA content (± SD) of C. olitorius was estimated to be 0.918 ± 0.011 pg, with a minimum of 0.882 ± 0.004 pg, and a maximum of 0.942 ± 0.004 pg. All studied plant materials were found to be diploid with 2n = 14. The genome size is negatively correlated with days to flowering (r = -0.29, p < 0.05) and positively with seed surface area (r = 0.38, p < 0.05). Moreover, a statistically significant positive correlation was detected between genome size and growing elevation (r = 0.59, p < 0.001) in wild populations. The mean 2C nuclear DNA content of C. capsularis was estimated to be 0.802 ± 0.008 pg. In comparison to other economically important crop species, the genome sizes of C. olitorius and C. capsularis are much smaller, and therewith closer to that of rice. The relatively small genome sizes will be of general advantage for any efforts into genomics or sequencing approaches of these species.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207