MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133859234 · doi:10.3732/ajb.1000321

Bryophyte‐specific primers for retrieving plastid genes suitable for phylogenetic inference

2011· article· en· W2133859234 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Chang, Sean W. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBryophyteBiologyPhylogenetic treePlastidPhylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyRange (aeronautics)PhylogenomicsTaxonPhylogenetic networkGeneGeneticsBotanyClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: We present here new bryophyte-specific primers that permit retrieval of 17 slowly evolving plastid genes and their associated introns and intergenic spacers. These regions were chosen to facilitate accurate phylogenetic inference across a broad range of mosses and other bryophytes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed 78 new primers for the targeted regions using an initial sampling of exemplar bryophytes and other green plants, to complement those used in vascular plants. We assessed the ability of the new primers to amplify and sequence these regions using a test set of 11 additional exemplar bryophytes. CONCLUSIONS: We show that the newly designed primers facilitate ready retrieval of 14 of 17 targeted regions from a broad range of bryophyte taxa. These primers should prove useful for future studies of bryophyte phylogeny.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207