MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159031084 · doi:10.1139/g06-014

Origin and evolution of Andigena potatoes revealed by chloroplast and nuclear DNA markers

2006· article· en· W2159031084 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thitaporn Sukhotu, Kazuyoshi Hosaka

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRestriction fragment length polymorphismChloroplast DNASolanum tuberosumGeneticsNuclear genePloidyBotanyNuclear DNAHaplotypeAlleleGenomeGenotypeGeneMitochondrial DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Andigena potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L. subsp. andigena Hawkes) (2n = 4x = 48) are important, native-farmer-selected cultivars in the Andes, which form a primary gene pool for improving a worldwide grown potato (S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum). To elucidate the origin of Andigena, 196 Andigena accessions were compared with 301 accessions of 33 closely related cultivated and wild species using several types of chloroplast DNA (ctDNA) markers and nuclear DNA (nDNA) restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) markers. Fourteen ctDNA types (haplotypes) and 115 RFLP bands were detected in Andigena, of which the main haplotypes and frequent RFLP bands were mostly shared with a cultivated diploid species, S. stenotomum Juz. et Buk. Principal component analysis of nDNA polymorphisms revealed a progressive and continuous variation from Peruvian wild species with C-type ctDNA to a group of wild species having S-type ctDNA in its variation range (S. bukasovii, S. canasense, S. candolleanum, and S. multidissectum), to cultivated diploid potatoes (S. phureja and S. stenotomum), and to cultivated tetraploid potatoes (Andigena and Chilean S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum). These results suggest that the initial Andigena population arose with multiple origins exclusively from S. stenotomum. The overall evolutionary process toward the present-day Andigena was discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations53
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207