MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136622789 · doi:10.1093/aob/mcm043

Presence of Triploids among Oak Species

2007· article· en· W2136622789 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Artur Dzialuk, Igor J. Chybicki, Monika Welc, Elwira Śliwińska, Jarosław Burczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsBiologyIntraspecific competitionPloidyTaxonMicrosatelliteGenusZoologyBotanyEvolutionary biologyAlleleGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polyploids, organisms that have multiple sets of chromosomes, are common in certain plant and animal taxa. However, there are only a few reports of intraspecific ploidy variation within the genus Quercus. The aim of the study was to investigate the suspected ploidy level of two oaks that have unusual microsatellite banding patterns. METHODS: Polyploidy was investigated by using microsatellite analysis, stomata length measurements and nuclear DNA content estimation by flow cytometry. KEY RESULTS: Each putative triploid tree has patterns of microsatellite variation unexpected for diploid genomes, with up to three alleles at some loci, significantly longer stomata and 1.5 times more DNA per nucleus compared with diploids. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this report contains the first evidence for triploidy in Q. petraea and confirmation of this phenomenon in Q. robur. Regardless of the positive or negative aspects of the presence of triploid oaks in forest stands, it is of value to be able to screen for them. This study demonstrates that nuclear microsatellites and estimation of DNA content by flow cytometry can readily be used for this purpose.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations59
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of BotanySame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207