Simple identification of mitochondrial lineages in contact zones based on lineage‐selective primers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of research projects focus on genetic variation among and within maternal lineages as encompassed by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). While mtDNA often differs substantially between species, large differences may also be found within species. The evaluation of such divergent lineages, for example in intraspecific contact zones (hybrid zones), commonly involves sequencing numerous individuals. Large-scale sequencing is both expensive and labour-intensive. Based on sequences from 15 individuals, we devised a simple and quick polymerase chain reaction assay for identification of divergent mtDNA lineages in a secondary contact zone of the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). The application uses lineage-selective primers to amplify a lineage-diagnostic product, and is based on each group of mtDNA haplotypes being a monophyletic assemblage of haplotypes sharing the same maternal ancestry, deeply divergent from the other group. The assay was tested on a larger sample (n = 147) of specimens from the contact zone, confirming its usefulness in quick and reliable identification of mtDNA lineages. This approach can be modified for other species, provided diagnostic lineage variation is available, and may also be performed in simple laboratory settings while conducting fieldwork.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".