MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074151246 · doi:10.1139/g01-076

Construction and characterization of a BAC library for the molecular dissection of a single wild beet centromere and sugar beet (<i>Beta vulgaris</i>) genome analysis

2001· article· en· W2074151246 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frank Gindullis, Daryna Dechyeva, Thomas Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsBacterial artificial chromosomeGenomeGenomic libraryCentromereChromosomeMolecular biologyGenePeptide sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have constructed a sugar beet bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library of the chromosome mutant PRO1. This Beta vulgaris mutant carries a single chromosome fragment of 6-9 Mbp that is derived from the wild beet Beta procumbens and is transmitted efficiently in meiosis and mitosis. The library consists of 50,304 clones, with an average insert size of 125 kb. Filter hybridizations revealed that approximately 3.1% of the clones contain mitochondrial or chloroplast DNA. Based on a haploid genome size of 758 Mbp, the library represents eight genome equivalents. Thus, there is a greater than 99.96% probability that any sequence of the PROI genome can be found in the library. Approximately 0.2% of the clones hybridized with centromeric sequences of the PRO1 minichromosome. Using the identified BAC clones in fluorescence in situ hybridization experiments with PRO1 and B. procumbens chromosome spreads, their wild-beet origin and centromeric localization were demonstrated. Comparative Southern hybridization of pulsed-field separated PROI DNA and BAC inserts indicate that the centromeric region of the minichromosome is represented by overlapping clones in the library. Therefore, the PRO1 BAC library provides a useful tool for the characterization of a single plant centromere and is a valuable resource for sugar beet genome analysis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations35
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207