MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125928584 · doi:10.1139/g99-099

Construction of a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library for potato molecular cytogenetics research

2000· article· en· W2125928584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junqi Song, Fenggao Dong, Jiming Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsBacterial artificial chromosomeBiologyCytogeneticsFluorescence in situ hybridizationGeneticsChromosomeMolecular cytogeneticsPloidyGenomePolyploidSolanum tuberosumGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lack of reliable techniques for chromosome identification is the major obstacle for cytogenetics research in plant species with large numbers of small chromosomes. To promote molecular cytogenetics research of potato (Solanum tuberosum, 2n = 4x = 48) we developed a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library of a diploid potato species S. bulbocastanum. The library consists of 23,808 clones with an average insert size of 155 kb, and represents approximately 3.7 equivalents to the potato genome. The majority of the clones in the BAC library generated distinct signals on specific potato chromosomes using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The hybridization signals provide excellent cytological markers to tag individual potato chromosomes. We also demonstrated that the BAC clones can be mapped to specific positions on meiotic pachytene chromosomes. The excellent resolution of pachytene FISH can be used to construct a physical map of potato by mapping molecular marker-targeted BAC clones on pachytene chromosomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations64
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207