MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular identification of roots from a grassland community using size differences in fluorescently labelled PCR amplicons of three cpDNA regions

2010· article· en· W2133711297 on OpenAlexafffund
JOHN M. TAGGART, James F. Cahill, Gordon G. McNickle, Jocelyn C. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology Resources · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDirectorate for Biological SciencesUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsBiologyAmpliconGrasslandIntergenic regionInternal transcribed spacerBotanyPolymerase chain reactionGeneticsEcologyRibosomal RNAGeneGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elucidating patterns of root growth is essential for a better understanding of the functioning of plant-dominated ecosystems. To this end, reliable and inexpensive methods are required to determine species compositions of root samples containing multiple species. Previous studies use a range of PCR-based approaches, but none have examined a species pool greater than 10 or 30 when evaluating mixed and single species samples, respectively. We present a method that evaluates size differences in fluorescently labelled PCR amplicons (fluorescent fragment length polymorphism) of the trnL intron and the trnT-trnL and trnL-trnF intergenic spacers. Amplification success of the trnT-trnL spacer was limited, but variation in the trnL intron and the trnL-trnF spacer was sufficient to distinguish over 80% of the 95 species (97% of the 77 genera) evaluated from a diverse fescue grassland community. Moreover, we identified species known to be present in mixed samples of 4, 8, 12, and 16 species on average 82% of the time. However, this approach is sensitive to detecting species known to be absent (false positives) when using our key of 95 species. Comparing unknowns to a limited species pool ameliorates this problem, comparable to a researcher using prior knowledge of what species could be found in a sample to constrain the identification of species. Comparisons to other methods and future improvements are discussed. This method is efficient, cost- effective and broadly applicable to many ecosystems.

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)0.001
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 score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations28
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Ecology ResourcesSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207