MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154966699 · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12246

Genome skimming by shotgun sequencing helps resolve the phylogeny of a pantropical tree family

2014· article· en· W2154966699 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre‐Jean G. Malé, Léa Bardon, Guillaume Besnard, Éric Coissac, Frédéric Delsuc, Julien Engel, Émeline Lhuillier, Caroline Scotti‐Saintagne, Alexandra Tinaut, Jérôme Chave

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology Resources · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treePantropicalShotgun sequencingGenomeMitochondrial DNAPhylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyPhylogenomicsDNA sequencingMolecular phylogeneticsShotgunGeneticsZoologyDNAGeneCladeGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole genome sequencing is helping generate robust phylogenetic hypotheses for a range of taxonomic groups that were previously recalcitrant to classical molecular phylogenetic approaches. As a case study, we performed a shallow shotgun sequencing of eight species in the tropical tree family Chrysobalanaceae to retrieve large fragments of high-copy number DNA regions and test the potential of these regions for phylogeny reconstruction. We were able to assemble the nuclear ribosomal cluster (nrDNA), the complete plastid genome (ptDNA) and a large fraction of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) with approximately 1000×, 450× and 120× sequencing depth respectively. The phylogenetic tree obtained with ptDNA resolved five of the seven internal nodes. In contrast, the tree obtained with mtDNA and nrDNA data were largely unresolved. This study demonstrates that genome skimming is a cost-effective approach and shows potential in plant molecular systematics within Chrysobalanaceae and other under-studied groups.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
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.

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

Citations122
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Ecology ResourcesSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207