Biodiversity of Asian rice gall midge (<i>Orseolia oryzae </i>Wood Mason) from five countries examined by AFLP analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis was used to assess the biodiversity of one of the most important dipteran pests of cereals, the Asian rice gall midge (Orseolia oryzae Wood Mason). Larvae and pupae were collected at 15 locations in five Asian countries and preserved in 95% ethanol for storage, shipment, and DNA extraction using cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB). Although only approximately 1 microg of DNA was extracted from a single pupa or larva, the use of several AFLP primers in various combinations meant that this amount of DNA was sufficient to allow many DNA fingerprints to be made per individual. Fingerprints were sufficiently reproducible, especially during selective amplification, to allow the genetic diversity within a field population to be characterized. Extraction of DNA from a pool of 20 insects yielded AFLP fingerprints in which variation among individuals was sacrificed in favor of detecting differences among populations. For each location, pooled DNA was amplified with three primer pairs. A total of 261 distinct AFLP bands were identified for the 45 fingerprints. Cluster analysis, performed by the unweighted pair-group method (UPGMA), separated the populations into two distinct groups. Group I included two populations from Guangdong province of southern China and one each from Laos and Imphal in northeastern India, while group II was comprised of eleven populations from elsewhere in India (Assam, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala) and from Nepal and Sri Lanka. AFLP analysis provided insight into the origins of gall midge biotypes. In 1992, the prevailing biotype in Imphal changed from Indian biotype 3 to a new biotype 3M. Our data show that biotype 3M belongs to group I and did not arise by a recent mutation from biotype 3, which belongs to group II. By contrast, Indian biotypes 2 and 4 are likely to have diverged through recent mutation and selection, as are Chinese biotypes 1 and 4. The almost simultaneous emergence of new biotypes in Kerala and Sri Lanka during 1985-1988 was most probably coincidental, because these biotypes are not closely related. AFLP fingerprints were also able to detect sexual dimorphism in the DNA of adult gall midges and to distinguish gall midge from its major parasite Platygaster oryzae.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".