cpDNA microsatellite markers for <i>Lemna minor</i> (Araceae): Phylogeographic implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: A lack of genetic markers impedes our understanding of the population biology of Lemna minor. Thus, the development of appropriate genetic markers for L. minor promises to be highly useful for population genetic studies and for addressing other life history questions regarding the species. • METHODS AND RESULTS: For the first time, we characterized nine polymorphic and 24 monomorphic chloroplast microsatellite markers in L. minor using DNA samples of 26 individuals sampled from five populations in Kashmir and of 17 individuals from three populations in Quebec. Initially, we designed 33 primer pairs, which were tested on genomic DNA from natural populations. Nine loci provided markers with two alleles. Based on genotyping of the chloroplast DNA fragments from 43 sampled individuals, we identified one haplotype in Quebec and 11 haplotypes in Kashmir, of which one occurs in 56% of the genotypes, one in 8%, and nine in 4%, respectively. There was a maximum of two alleles per locus. • CONCLUSIONS: These new chloroplast microsatellite markers for L. minor and haplotype distribution patterns indicate a complex phylogeographic history that merits further investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".