MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100393414 · doi:10.1139/g09-007

<i>Prunus avium</i>: nuclear DNA study in wild populations and sweet cherry cultivars

2009· article· en· W2100393414 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carmine Guarino, Simona Santoro, Luciana De Simone, G. Cipriani

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPrunusCultivarBotanyNuclear DNAGeneticsHorticultureGeneMitochondrial DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The PCR-SSR technique was used to detect nuclear DNA diversity in five wild populations of Prunus avium from deciduous forests in Italy, Slovenia, and Croatia and 87 sweet cherry accessions from different geographical areas that have been maintained in the sweet cherry collection in Italy. This sweet cherry collection includes local accessions from the Campania Region as well as accessions from different countries. Twenty-eight microsatellites, previously developed in this species, generated polymorphic amplification products. Between 2 and 14 alleles were revealed for the polymorphic loci studied, with the expected heterozygosity ranging from 0.045 to 0.831. The total probability of identity was 56.94 x 10-18. A model-based Bayesian clustering analysis identified nine distinct gene pools in cultivated P. avium. The probability that wild populations were assigned to cultivated gene pools indicated that three gene pools accounted for the genomic origin of 53% of P. avium sampled. A dendrogram was generated using UPGMA (unweighted pair group method with arithmetic averages) based on Nei genetic distance analysis. This dendrogram classified most of the genotypes into one major group with an additional group of five accessions. The results indicate that this set of SSRs is highly informative, and they are discussed in terms of the implications for sweet cherry characterization.

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 score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207