Identification and characterization of RAPD markers inferring genetic relationships among Pine species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total genomic DNAs were extracted from several populations of pine species and amplified using oligonucleotides of random sequences. Polymorphism in random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers was high and sufficient in distinguishing each of the species. Genetic relationships among eight pine species (Pinus sylvestris, Pinus strobus, Pinus rigida, Pinus resinosa, Pinus nigra, Pinus contorta, Pinus monticola, and Pinus banksiana) from different provenances were analyzed. The degree of band sharing was used to evaluate genetic distance between species and to construct a phylogenetic tree. In general, the dendrogram corroborated the description of relationships based on morphological characteristics and crossability, but also provided new insights into pine taxonomy. RAPD markers specific to some pine species were cloned and sequenced. PCR amplifications using pairs of designed specific primers revealed that all the cloned sequences were likely genus specific because they were not found in spruce or larch. True species-specific sequences were identified using designed primers flanking cloned RAPD fragments. The analysis of RAPD fragment sequences confirmed the genetic relationships among species. A 2281-bp RAPD band called PI-Mt-Stb-23 from P. strobus was used as a probe in restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis and produced distinct banding patterns for each species examined, consistent with the highly polymorphic character of DNA-fingerprinting probes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".