MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155973022 · doi:10.5376/mpb.2015.06.0016

Development of new set of microsatellite markers in cultivated tobacco and their transferability in other Nicotiana spp.

2015· article· en· W2155973022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Madhav. M.S, Siva Raju K., Kishor Gaikwad, B. Vishalakshi, Murthy T.G.K., B. Umakanth

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Plant Breeding · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosatelliteTransferabilityBiologyNicotianaBiotechnologyGeneticsBotanySolanaceaeAlleleGeneComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scarcity of molecular markers in tobacco has been a limitation, hampering the acceleration of breeding efforts. Development of microsatellite markers is a prerequisite for mapping, tagging of many useful qualitative and quantitative traits and also for the generation of saturated linkage map. Use of microsatellite-enriched genomic libraries an efficient and rapid method for the identification of clones harboring microsatellite motifs leading to the development of microsatellite markers. In the present study, a total of 111 microsatellite motifs was identified from the enriched library, of which, 70 motifs (which includes perfect and imperfect repeat) were used for marker development. These newly developed markers could successfully differentiated different types of tobacco and diverse cultivars of Flue Cured Virginia (FCV) tobacco. The high rate of transferability (95-7% - 100%) of these microsatellite markers in a wide range of Nicotiana species indicated their potential as viable resources in the inter-specific gene transfer programme. The set of microsatellite markers developed in this study is a valuable addition to the already available DNA marker resources in tobacco.

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 score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Plant BreedingSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207