The reproducibility of RAPD profiles: Effects of PCR components on RAPD analysis of four centaurium species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis is a simple and reliable method used to detect DNA polymorphism. Several factors can affect the amplification profiles, thereby causing false bands and non-reproducibility of the assay. In this study, we analyzed the effects of different concentrations of primer, magnesium chloride, template DNA and Taq DNA polymerase to develop and standardize a RAPD protocol for Centaurium species. The optimized PCR reaction mixture included: 50 ng of DNA extracted using a CTbased protocol, 2.5 mM MgCl2, 7.5 pmol primer and 2 U of Taq polymerase in a final volume of 25 ?l. Each of the five primers used in experiments (OPB11, OPB15, OPB18, OPF05 and OPH02) generated reproducible and distinguishable fingerprinting patterns of four Centaurium species. The obtained optimized RAPD protocol and the selected primers are useful for our further work in the genetic diversity studies of Centaurium species.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".