Myanmar mango landraces reveal genetic uniqueness over common cultivars from Florida, India, and Southeast Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mango (Mangifera indica) is believed to have evolved in a large area spanning northeastern India, Bangladesh, and northwestern Myanmar. We compared the genetic structure of mango accessions from Myanmar with that of mango accessions from Florida, India, and Southeast Asia with 11 SSR markers. The Myanmar accessions exhibited considerable genetic diversity (unbiased heterozygosity, UHe = 0.698) and a high number of private alleles. Despite the low degree of genetic differentiation among accessions (global Fst, tetha = 0.123), Myanmar's accessions were distinguishable from mango accessions from Florida, India, and Southeast Asia in a principal coordinates plot. Genetic differentiation of the Myanmar accessions from other groups was also observed in a Bayesian cluster analysis. No population structure among Myanmar accessions was revealed by a neighbor-joining tree. Our results revealed a broad genetic background and genetic distinctiveness of mango in Myanmar. We discuss the implications for diversification mechanisms based on the embryo type characteristics and provide recommendations for conservation efforts.
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) | 0.001 | 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".