MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055026308 · doi:10.5539/jas.v2n2p41

Genetic Polymorphism between Tobacco Cultivar-groups Revealed by Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism Analysis

2010· article· en· W2055026308 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessada Denduangboripant, Tianrat Piteekan, Matchima Nantharat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersThailand Research Fund
KeywordsAmplified fragment length polymorphismCultivarBiologyPrimer (cosmetics)Polymorphism (computer science)Geneticsgenomic DNAHorticultureGeneGenotypeGenetic diversityMedicinePopulationChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tobacco (Nicotina tabacum) has been introduced to Thailand for hundreds of years. All tobaccos cultivated inthe country are legally separated to local (or early-imported) and imported cultivar groups. However, no methodcould precisely differentiate the two groups, especially from cured leaf samples. Amplified fragment lengthpolymorphism (AFLP) analysis was introduced to estimate genetic polymorphism of 19 tobacco cultivars grownin Thailand. Thirty-two selective primer-combinations were screened on the genomic DNA extracted from curedleaves. Three primer pairs were selected and resulted in 139 scorable AFLP fragments, of which 103 (74.1%)were polymorphic. Genetic relationship analysis revealed clustering patterns of tobacco samples generallyfollowing the cultivar groups. Almost all local cultivars were found closely related to Burley and Turkish typesof the imported group, but significantly separated from Virginia type. Our finding therefore should be animportant knowledge for further research on cultivar identification and genetic improvement of tobaccos.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207