MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035332456 · doi:10.1134/s1022795411080060

Variability and phylogenetic relationships of the Cucumis sativus L. species inferred from NBS-profiling and RAPD analysis

2011· article· en· W2035332456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Svetlana V. Goryunova, I. V. Gashkova, G. A. Kosareva

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian Journal of Genetics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCucumisRAPDBiologySubgenusPhylogenetic treeBotanyGeneticsTaxonomy (biology)GeneGenetic diversityPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic variability of the Cucumis sativus species and its phylogenetic relationsips with other species of the genus were studied on the basis of RAPD marking and analysis of intra- and interspecific polymorphism of the nucleotide sequences of the NBS-LRR gene family in species of the genus Cucumis with the use of the NBS profiling method. According to RAPD analysis, cucumber cultivars from different geographic regions are highly similar, except for accessions k-3835 and k-3833 from Afghanistan. NBS profiling analysis revealed phylogenetically most distinct accessions expected to be characterized by specificity of resistance: k-3845 from Uzbekistan, k-3851 from Kyrgyzstan, line 701, k-3835 and k-3833 from Afghanistan, k-2757 and k-3079 from Netherlands, vr.k. 908 from Canada, k-2926 from Bulgaria, Russian cultivars Monastyrskii, Izyashchnyi, and Lel'. Three essentially different groups of species were distinguished, and the C. sativus species (subgenus Cucumis) was found to be distant from the species belonging to the subgenus Melo.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussian Journal of GeneticsSame topicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae ResearchFrench-language works237,207