Molecular phylogeny of<i>Cucumis</i>species as revealed by consensus chloroplast SSR marker length and sequence variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate phylogenetic relationships in the genus Cucumis, 9 consensus chloroplast simple sequence repeat (ccSSR) primer pairs (ccSSR3, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, and 23) were employed for DNA fragment length variation and 5 amplified fragments, ccSSR4, 12, 13, 19, and 20, were sequenced using total DNA from 13 accessions representing 7 African Cucumis species (x = 12), 3 Cucumis melo L. (x = 12) accessions, 2 Cucumis sativus L. (x = 7) accessions, and 1 Cucumis hystrix Chakr. (x = 12) accession. A Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai (x = 11) accession was used as an outgroup. While fragment length analysis revealed the existence of 3 major species clusters (i.e., a group of African Cucumis species, a group composed of C. melo accessions, and a group containing C. sativus and C. hystrix species), sequence variation analysis identified 2 major species clusters (i.e., a group of African Cucumis species and a group composed of C. melo, C. sativus, and C. hystrix species). Comparative analysis using nuclear DNA (previous studies) and cpDNA sequence substitution data resulted in the placement of C. melo and C. sativus in different cluster groupings. Thus, both nuclear and cytoplasmic DNA should be employed and compared when a putative progenitor or specimens of an ancestral Cucumis species lineage is investigated. In addition, C. ficifolius (2x) and C. aculeatus (4x) of the African Cucumis species clustered together in this study. This result does not agree with reported isozyme analyses, but does agree with previously characterized chromosome homologies between these 2 species. Although African Cucumis species and C. hystrix do not share a close relationship, genetic affinities between C. sativus and C. hystrix are considerable. Combined evidence from previously published studies and data presented herein lend support to the hypothesis that C. hystrix is either a progenitor species of C. sativus or that they at least share a common ancestral lineage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".