MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129414163 · doi:10.3732/ajb.1100160

Rapid isolation and cross‐amplification of microsatellite markers in <i>Plectritis congesta</i> (Valerianaceae) with 454 sequencing

2011· article· en· W2129414163 on OpenAlexafffund
Jamie R. McEwen, Jana C. Vamosi, Sean M. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyMicrosatelliteGeneticsGene duplicationLoss of heterozygosityAlleleGenetic markerEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Microsatellite markers were isolated and characterized in Plectritis congesta for studying the evolution of this highly variable species. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used 454 sequencing of DNA enriched for microsatellite repeats to develop microsatellite markers. This produced 262079 reads with an average length of 324 bp, representing approximately 800 microsatellite regions from which 48 primers were tested. Eleven markers reliably amplified without optimization. These primer pairs showed a high degree of heterozygosity and allelic diversity. Unexpectedly, half of the markers contained multiple peaks, with up to four alleles per individual, which suggests that either polyploidy or isolated gene duplication has occurred within this clade. These primers successfully cross-amplified in P. macrocera, indicating the utility of these markers for the genus. CONCLUSIONS: With variation in mating system and habitat, a mix of duplicated and nonduplicated markers, and high genetic variance, Plectritis is an ideal candidate model genus for studying the ecological and evolutionary consequences of gene duplication.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207