MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162498187 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n7p51

Comparison and Improvement of Different Methods of RNA Isolation from Strawberry (Fragria * ananassa)

2012· article· en· W2162498187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dingqun Yu, Haoru Tang, Yong Zhang, Du Zhen, Haowei Yu, Qing Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEducation Department of Sichuan Province
KeywordsRNARNA extractionChemistryFragariaBiochemistryPolysaccharideBiologyChromatographyFood scienceGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolation of high-quality RNA from different strawberry tissues is often affected by the presence of high levels of contamination by polysaccharides and phenolic compounds. By the methods of improved CTAB, SDS, and guanidinium thiocyanate, total RNA was isolated from leaves of strawberry. The result indicated that total RNA is of high quality and undegraded by using CTAB. However, it was difficult to isolate total RNA from leaves of strawberry by using guanidinium thiocyanate, and total RNA could be extracted by using SDS with low concentration, impurity and degradation in some degree. After comparing, an improved 3% CTAB3 was used to isolate RNA from tissues of strawberry, and the isolated RNA was good enough for further applications. After RT-PCR, the 699 bp sequence of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) gene was obtained to identify the quality of total RNA from strawberry. In this experiment, improved 3% CTAB3 method could be regarded as a simple, rapid, economic and convenient method for the RNA isolated from strawberry.

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 score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207