MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032910830 · doi:10.1139/g04-003

Heterogeneity of ITS1 sequences in the biting midge <i>Culicoides impunctatus</i> (Goetghebuer) suggests a population in Argyll, Scotland, may be genetically distinct

2004· article· en· W2032910830 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Allyson V. Ritchie, Alison Blackwell, G. Malloch, Brian Fenton

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicVector-Borne Animal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Ecological Society
KeywordsBiologyMidgeCulicoidesPopulationZoologyBitingEvolutionary biologyGeneticsEcologyLarvaDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ribosomal DNA (rDNA) internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS1) is a useful genomic region for understanding evolutionary and genetic relationships. In the current study, variation in ITS1 from eight Culicoides species was analysed by PCR, DNA restriction analysis, cloning, and sequencing. ITS1 variants were essentially homogenized within a species, as sequences were identical or closely related. However, Culicoides impunctatus ITS1 sequences derived from one (Argyll) of five populations contained considerable genomic diversity. The secondary structure of each ITS1 was computed. The structure aided the production of an accurate alignment and the identification of a large indel. A phylogenetic analysis was performed. Some of the sequences from the diverse Argyll C. impunctatus population were more related to Culicoides imicola, a vector of animal pathogens in the Old World, than they were to the other C. impunctatus sequences. Thus, the rDNA ITS1 regions of individuals in the Argyll C. impunctatus population were not conforming to the general theory of rDNA homogenization through molecular drive.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicVector-Borne Animal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207