MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113406476 · doi:10.1603/008.102.0117

Distinguishing Between Laboratory-Reared and Greenhouse- and Field-Collected <i>Trichoplusia Ni</i> (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Using the Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism Method

2009· article· en· W2113406476 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michelle T. Franklin, Judith H. Myers, Carol Ritland

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Entomological Society of America · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersLuonnontieteiden ja Tekniikan Tutkimuksen ToimikuntaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaF. Hoffmann-La Roche
KeywordsBiologyAmplified fragment length polymorphismTrichoplusiaNoctuidaeLepidoptera genitaliaBacillus thuringiensisPopulationCanolaBotanyGeneticsGenetic diversityBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Frequent use of the microbial insecticide, Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki (Berliner) (Bt), in commercial vegetable greenhouses has led to the evolution of resistance in cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), populations. Spatial patterns of Bt resistance suggest that resistant moths disperse from greenhouses selected with Bt to neighboring untreated greenhouses. To quantify dispersal patterns in greenhouse and field populations, molecular markers are desired. We developed a DNA isolation procedure and evaluated the utility of the molecular fingerprinting technique, amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), to analyze the possible population structure of T. ni by using laboratory-reared populations. We also assessed the ability of AFLP markers to distinguish between laboratory and wild T. ni populations collected from a greenhouse and field in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, Canada. Due to the complexity of the T. ni genome, primer combinations of E+3 and M+4 were required to unambiguously score polymorphic loci. Three of the primer combinations that were examined produced &amp;gt;65 polymorphic bands in laboratory-reared populations, and &amp;gt;90 bands in greenhouse- and field-collected populations. Levels of heterozygosity were higher in wild populations compared with those reared in the laboratory, and AFLP markers reliably distinguished between laboratory and wild populations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Entomological Society of AmericaSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207