MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097552529 · doi:10.1139/g01-132

Allelic variation of a<i>Beauveria bassiana</i>(Ascomycota: Hypocreales) minisatellite is independent of host range and geographic origin

2002· article· en· W2097552529 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brad S. Coates, Richard L. Hellmich, Leslie C. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicHelminth infection and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBeauveria bassianaMinisatelliteBeauveriaBassianaHypocrealesGeneticsAlleleGenetic diversityLocus (genetics)MicrosatelliteBotanyAscomycotaGeneBiological pest controlPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The minisatellite locus, BbMin1, was isolated from a partial Beauveria bassiana genomic library that consisted of poly(GA) flanked inserts. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of the BbMin1 repeat demonstrated allele size variation among 95 B. bassiana isolates. Amplification was also observed from single isolates of Beauveria amorpha, Beauveria brongniartii, and Beauveria caledonica. Eight alleles were identified at the haploid locus, where repeat number fluctuated between one and fourteen. AMOVA and theta (Fst) indicated that fixation of repeat number has not occurred within pathogenic ecotypes or geographically isolated samples of B. bassiana. Selective neutrality of allele size, the rate of BbMin1 mutation, and the age of the species may contribute to host and geographic independence of the marker. Presence of alleles with a large number of repeat units may be attributed to the rare occurrence of somatic recombination or DNA replication error. The molecular genetic marker was useful for the identification of genetic types of B. bassiana and related species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations60
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicHelminth infection and controlFrench-language works237,207