Applications of bulking in molecular characterization of plant germplasm: a critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Characterization of plant germplasm using molecular techniques is playing an increasingly important role in the management and utilization of plant genetic resources, but has its limitations in the screening of large numbers of accessions held in seed genebanks worldwide. Bulking individual plants from one accession or group to form a representative sample is a promising approach to widening the scope of a characterization, but it is not without technical problems in detecting genetic variation. This review was conducted to assess the technical pitfalls of bulking, and to evaluate the effectiveness of various bulking methods in the assessment of genetic variation and genetic relationships, and in the identification of plant germplasm. Clearly, some alleles, particularly those occurring at low frequency, may go undetected in a bulked sample, depending on the bulking methods and the molecular techniques used. As a result, genetic diversity estimates and genetic relationship inferences can be significantly biased. Germplasm identification may not be always reliable. Thus, it is imperative that the detection limit imposed by bulking be assessed for a newly initiated molecular germplasm characterization and bias be considered in interpretation of the resulting characterization data. Equally imperative is the need for continuous efforts of exploring efficient bulking procedures for the screening of large germplasm collections, particularly by the newly developed marker systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".