MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080940378 · doi:10.1139/g01-145

AFLPs mark different genomic regions compared with RFLPs: a case study in tomato

2002· article· en· W2080940378 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guusje Bonnema, Petra van den Berg, P. Lindhout

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAmplified fragment length polymorphismGeneticsRestriction fragment length polymorphismIntrogressionEcoRIChromosomeRestriction fragmentGenetic linkage mapGenomeGene mappingRestriction enzymeGenePolymerase chain reactionGenetic diversityPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A set of three tomato chromosome 7 introgression lines (ILs) containing overlapping segments of Lycopersicon pennellii DNA was screened with a set of 10 EcoRI-MseI and 10 PstI-MseI AFLP primer combinations. A large number of markers were identified that mapped to one of the four regions of chromosome 7 defined by the set of three ILs. Because many of the identified markers have known map positions in three tomato reference maps, their location on the tomato genome could be verified. It was demonstrated that the three chromosome 7 ILs carried a chromosome 10 region harbouring a cluster of six AFLP markers that had not been detected before using RFLPs. The causes and implications of this observation are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207