Comparative Analysis of Six DNA Extraction Methods in Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.Walp)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High quality DNA extractions are a prerequisite for genetic studies of a variety of plants including cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Nowadays, there are a great number of plant DNA extraction methods, and commercially available extraction kits are also becoming more and more popular. It appears that different procedures work best for different plant groups. Thus in the genetic studies of cowpea, which DNA extraction method to choose becomes a concern. To solve this problem, five classic plant DNA isolation methods, including three CTAB methods and two SDS methods, were compared and evaluated while isolation using a commercial kit was also undertaken. The DNA extracted by these six methods from two-week-old cowpea seedlings were analyzed according to their cost and time, yield, purity, integrity, and functionality in restriction endonuclease digestion and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) based downstream analysis. After the evaluation, one most suitable method, described by Dellaporta et al. (1983) was selected and chosen for isolating DNA from young leaves of cowpea seedlings. The cost and time required in this method was relatively low. In addition, the quantity and the quality of the DNA extracted by this method were high enough to perform hundreds of PCR-based reactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".