Genetic relationships among fruiting-mei (Prunus mume Sieb. et Zucc.) cultivars evaluated with AFLP and SNP markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic relationships among 50 fruiting-mei (Prunus mume Sieb. et Zucc.) cultivars from China and Japan were investigated, using 767 amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and 103 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. The polymorphism among the cultivars was found to be 69.77%, based on EcoR I + Mse I AFLP primer pairs. The sequence alignment of 11 group sequences, derived from 50 samples, yielded 103 SNPs; the total length of genomic sequences was 3683 bp. Among these SNPs, 73 were heterozygous in the loci of different cultivars. The SNP distribution was 58% transition, 40% transversion, and 2% InDels. There was also 1 trinucleotide deletion. AFLP and SNP markers allowed us to evaluate the genetic diversity of these 50 fruiting-mei cultivars. The 2 derived cladograms did display some differences: all cultivars formed 2 subclusters (1A and 1B) in the cladogram based on AFLP polymorphisms, and formed 3 subclusters (2A, 2B, and 2C) in the cladogram based on SNP polymorphisms; and, in the cladogram based on AFLP polymorphisms, most cultivars from the Guangdong to Fujian provinces (G-F) in China, from the Yunnan, Hunan, and Sichuan provinces (Y-S-H) in China, and from Japan grouped in cluster 1A, and 18 (78.26%) of 23 cultivars from Jiangsu to Zhejiang provinces in China (J-Z) grouped in cluster 1B. The results demonstrate that mei cultivars from Japan are clustered with cultivars from China, and support the hypothesis that mei in Japan were introduced from China. Cultivars from the J-Z region of China have more genetic similarities. Cultivars from the G-F and Y-S-H regions have fewer genetic similarities and suggest more germplasm exchanges in the past.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".