MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A SURVEY OF BANGIALES (RHODOPHYTA) BASED ON MULTIPLE MOLECULAR MARKERS REVEALS CRYPTIC DIVERSITY<sup>1</sup>

2012· article· en· W2153812257 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hana Kucera, Gary W. Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsBamfield Marine Sciences CentreUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDNA barcodingPlastidContext (archaeology)Evolutionary biologyPhylogenetic treeSpecies complexGigartinalesPorphyraIdentification (biology)BotanyGeneticsAlgaeGeneChloroplast

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bangiales is a diverse order consisting of 28 species in Canada. Morphological simplicity and similarity among species has led to taxonomic confusion and the need for molecular techniques for species identification. This study is the first to employ the standardized DNA barcode marker COI-5P in a broad floristic survey of the Bangiales in Canadian marine waters. A total of 37 species were ultimately sequenced, 29 of which occurred in Canada. Molecular results led to the synonymization of Wildemania cuneiformis with W. amplissima, as well as the description of two new species: Porphyra corallicola sp. nov. and Pyropia peggicovensis sp. nov., and discovery of another five putative new species. Comparison of the performance of COI-5P as a species identification tool relative to rbcL (large subunit of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase) and the UPA (universal plastid amplicon) revealed that, although each marker had strengths and weaknesses, the COI-5P showed the highest species-discriminatory power due to its high level of interspecific variation. The rbcL was further used to place the new species into a phylogenetic context, whereas UPA was not recommended for species identification in the Bangiales owing to within-individual heterogeneity between the two copies present in the plastid genomes in some lineages.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

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

Citations77
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207