MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072433307 · doi:10.1139/g01-053

Application of denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography for mapping of single nucleotide polymorphisms in barley (<i>Hordeum vulgare</i> L.)

2001· article· en· W2072433307 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raja Kota, Markus Wolf, W. Michalek, Andreas Graner

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismBiologyHordeum vulgareDenaturing high performance liquid chromatographyGeneticsContext (archaeology)Restriction fragment length polymorphismSNPPopulationSNP arrayGenotypeMutationGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in DNA sequence analysis and the establishment of high-throughput assays have provided the framework for large-scale discovery and analysis of DNA sequence variation. In this context, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are of particular interest. To initiate a systematic approach to develop an SNP map of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), we have employed denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) to analyse segregating SNP patterns in a doubled-haploid (DH) mapping population. To this end, SNPs between the parental genotypes were identified using a direct sequencing approach. Once a SNP was established between the parents, the optimal melting temperature of the PCR fragment containing the SNP was predicted for its analysis by DHPLC. Following the detection of the optimal temperature, the DH lines were analysed for the presence of either of the alleles. To test the utility of the analysis, data from previously mapped RFLP markers from which these SNPs were derived were compared. Results from these experiments indicate that DHPLC can be efficiently employed in analysing SNPs on a high-throughput scale.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations47
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207