Relationships between Malaysians Cultivars of Tongkat Ali (Eurycoma longifolia Jack) Obtained through RAPD Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis was done on Eurycoma Longifolia Jack (ELJ) cultivars originating from 7 different locations in Malaysia to determine whether the originality of ELJ cultivars can be preserved in an uncontrolled cultivation area. Out of 60 arbitrary 10-mer primers, a total of 320 DNA fragments were amplified with an average of 53.3 RAPD markers per primer. 71 (22%) of the 320 DNA-fragments was found to be monomorphic. The remaining 249 (78%) were polymorphic. The approximate size of the largest fragment produced was 3000 base pair (bp) and the easily recognizable fragment produced was 300 bp. Similarity index of RAPD banding patterns was used to investigate the relationships between ELJ cultivars. Mantel test showed that the correlation between Jaccard and Dice similarity matrices was high and significant (0.9907). The dendogram showed that ELJ cultivars can be clustered into three main clusters. Cluster 1 consisted of Sabah cultivars (East Malaysia), Cluster 2 consisted of Pahang and Terengganu cultivars (middle part of West Malaysia) while cluster 3 consisted of Kedah and Kelantan cultivars (east part of West Malaysia). The results of Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCA) were comparable to the Dendogram by UPGMA. The first two principle coordinates explained 53.62% of total variations and separated the 37 ELJ cultivars into three main clusters with a slight overlap between each other.
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) | 0.000 | 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".