MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170933492 · doi:10.1139/x02-110

The development of microsatellite DNA markers for genetic analysis in Douglas-fir

2002· article· en· W2170933492 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vindhya Amarasinghe, John E. Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosatelliteBiologyPrimer (cosmetics)GeneticsLocus (genetics)Polymerase chain reactionAllelegenomic DNADNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The microsatellite motifs AG, AC, and ATG were found to be the most abundant in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and several other conifer tree species among di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide simple sequence repeats (SSR). Colonies containing AG, AC, and ATG repeats were selected from enriched genomic libraries of Douglas-fir, and 603 were sequenced. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers were designed from flanking sequences in 102 of the SSR clones, of which 50 primer pairs (for 10 AC-repeat microsatellites and 40 AG-repeat microsatellites) produced robust amplification products. Variability was confirmed with 24 unrelated Douglas-fir trees and Medelian segregation with 33-66 progeny from 3 full-sib populations. Forty-eight of the 50 loci were polymorphic, with a mean of 7.5 alleles per locus. Allele sizes ranged from 73 to 292 base pairs. Allele frequencies for the 48 polymorphic loci varied from 0.017 to 0.906 with mean allele frequency of 0.250. Expected heterozygosities among the polymorphic loci varied from 0.174 to 0.926, with a mean of 0.673. Additional, high molecular weight PCR products were amplified by some of the primer pairs, but they did not interfere with the scoring of alleles. Most of the Douglas-fir primer pairs also amplified SSR-containing loci in other conifer species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207