CapsID: a web-based tool for developing parsimonious sets of CAPS molecular markers for genotyping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genotyping may be carried out by a number of different methods including direct sequencing and polymorphism analysis. For a number of reasons, PCR-based polymorphism analysis may be desirable, owing to the fact that only small amounts of genetic material are required, and that the costs are low. One popular and cheap method for detecting polymorphisms is by using cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence, or CAPS, molecular markers. These are also known as PCR-RFLP markers. RESULTS: We have developed a program, called CapsID, that identifies snip-SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms that alter restriction endonuclease cut sites) within a set or sets of reference sequences, designs PCR primers around these, and then suggests the most parsimonious combination of markers for genotyping any individual who is not a member of the reference set. The output page includes biologist-friendly features, such as images of virtual gels to assist in genotyping efforts. CapsID is freely available at http://bbc.botany.utoronto.ca/capsid. CONCLUSION: CapsID is a tool that can rapidly provide minimal sets of CAPS markers for molecular identification purposes for any biologist working in genetics, community genetics, plant and animal breeding, forensics and other fields.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.027 |
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".