MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163341592 · doi:10.1139/g01-110

Polymorphism of PCR-based markers targeting exons, introns, promoter regions, and SSRs in maize and introns and repeat sequences in oat

2001· article· en· W2163341592 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James B. Holland, Sara Jane Helland, N. Sharopova, D C Rhyne

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsIntronExonGenePrimer (cosmetics)GenotypeGenetic markerAvenaBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequence databases could be efficiently exploited for development of DNA markers if it were known which gene regions reveal the most polymorphism when amplified by PCR. We developed PCR primer pairs that target specific regions of previously sequenced genes from Avena and Zea species. Primers were targeted to amplify 40 introns, 24 exons, and 23 promoter regions within 54 maize genes. We surveyed 48 maize inbred lines (previously assayed for simple-sequence repeat (SSR) polymorphism) for amplification-product polymorphism. We also developed primers to target 14 SSRs and 12 introns within 18 Avena genes, and surveyed 22 hexaploid oat cultivars and 2 diploid Avena species for amplification-product polymorphism. In maize, 67% of promoter markers, 58% of intron markers, and 13% of exon markers exhibited amplification-product polymorphisms. Among polymorphic primer pairs in maize, genotype diversity was highest for SSR markers (0.60) followed by intron markers (0.46), exon markers (0.42), and promoter markers (0.28). Among all Avena genotypes, 64% of SSR markers and 58% of intron markers revealed polymorphisms, but among the cultivars only, 21% of SSR markers and 50% of intron markers were polymorphic. Polymorphic-sequence-tagged sites for plant-breeding applications can be created easily by targeting noncoding gene regions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations57
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207