MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143164589 · doi:10.1139/g00-045

Comparative analysis of microsatellite loci in chicken and turkey

2000· article· en· W2143164589 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kent M. Reed, Kristelle M. Mendoza, Craig W. Beattie

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMicrosatelliteGeneticsEvolutionary biologyAlleleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-species amplification of 520 chicken microsatellite markers was tested by polymerase chain reaction with genomic DNA of the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Each primer pair was tested at six different combinations of annealing temperature and MgCl2 concentration. A total of 280 (54%) of the primer pairs produced amplification products. The majority of these products were similar, if not identical in size to those expected based on the fragment sizes of the corresponding chicken loci. Structure of the dinucleotide repeat and flanking sequences was examined for 13 turkey fragments (amplified with chicken primers) and 5 chicken fragments (amplified with turkey primers). Sequence analysis found a wide array of mutations between species in addition to differences in repeat length. To estimate the usefulness of the amplified loci for genetic mapping in the turkey, allelic polymorphism was determined for 57 of the 280 amplified loci. A total of 20 of 57 markers (35%) were polymorphic with an average of 1.4 alleles per locus. The results of this study suggest that approximately 20% of the chicken microsatellite markers will be useful for mapping the turkey genome.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207