Identification of Pummelo Cultivars by Using a Panel of 25 Selected SNPs and 12 DNA Segments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pummelo cultivars are usually difficult to identify morphologically, especially when fruits are unavailable. The problem was addressed in this study with the use of two methods: high resolution melting analysis of SNPs and sequencing of DNA segments. In the first method, a set of 25 SNPs with high polymorphic information content were selected from SNPs predicted by analyzing ESTs and sequenced DNA segments. High resolution melting analysis was then used to genotype 260 accessions including 55 from Myanmar, and 178 different genotypes were thus identified. A total of 99 cultivars were assigned to 86 different genotypes since the known somatic mutants were identical to their original genotypes at the analyzed SNP loci. The Myanmar samples were genotypically different from each other and from all other samples, indicating they were derived from sexual propagation. Statistical analysis showed that the set of SNPs was powerful enough for identifying at least 1000 pummelo genotypes, though the discrimination power varied in different pummelo groups and populations. In the second method, 12 genomic DNA segments of 24 representative pummelo accessions were sequenced. Analysis of the sequences revealed the existence of a high haplotype polymorphism in pummelo, and statistical analysis showed that the segments could be used as genetic barcodes that should be informative enough to allow reliable identification of 1200 pummelo cultivars. The high level of haplotype diversity and an apparent population structure shown by DNA segments and by SNP genotypes, respectively, were discussed in relation to the origin and domestication of the pummelo 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".