MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054090679 · doi:10.1021/jf901618z

DNA Barcoding of Commercially Important Salmon and Trout Species (Oncorhynchus and Salmo) from North America

2009· article· en· W2054090679 on OpenAlexaff
Rosalee S. Rasmussen, Michael T. Morrissey, Paul D. N. Hebert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoTroutDNA barcodingFisheryOncorhynchusBiologyRainbow troutSalmonidaeZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated the ability of DNA barcoding to reliably identify the seven commercially important salmon and trout species (genera Oncorhynchus and Salmo ) in North America. More than 1000 salmonid reference samples were collected from a wide geographic range. DNA extracts from these samples were sequenced for the standard 650 bp barcode region of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene (COI). DNA barcodes showed low intraspecies divergences (mean, 0.26%; range, 0.04-1.09%), and the mean congeneric divergence was 32-fold greater, at 8.22% (range, 3.42-12.67%). The minimum interspecies divergence was always greater than the maximum intraspecies divergence, indicating that these species can be reliably differentiated using DNA barcodes. Furthermore, several shorter barcode regions (109-218 bp), termed "mini-barcodes", were identified in silico that can differentiate all eight species, providing a potential means for species identification in heavily processed products.

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)0.001
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations111
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207