Organellar Genome Diversity in <i>Saccharum</i> and <i>Erianthus</i> spp. revealed by PCR-RFLP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The organellar genome diversity in Saccharum and Erianthus species was analysed by chloroplast deoxyribonucleic acid (cpDNA) and mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA) polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). Six different chloroplast primers ( psbC - trnS , trnL , psaA , clpP , matK and ccsA ); and ten mitochondrial primers ( nad 1, nad 4/1-2, nad 4/2-3, nad 5/1-2, nad 5/4-5, 18S-5SrRNA , coxI , matR , cob and mttb ) were used to amplify the genes/intergenic spacers of 8 different members of Saccharum complex namely S . officinarum , S. robustum , S. spontaneum , S. barberi , E. arundinaceus, E. ciliaris , E. elegans and CoC 671 ( S . officinarum hybrid). The amplified PCR-products were digested with ten different restriction enzymes namely Alu I, BamH I, Bgl II, Dra I, EcoR I, Hae III, Hind III, Hinf I and Pst I, Taq I. Our results suggest that although monomorphic bands were observed with the PCR using chloroplast and mitochondrial primers; there exists restriction fragment length polymorphism in these genes/intergenic spacers. Out of the sixty primer-enzyme combinations studied, thirty primer-enzyme combinations revealed cpPCR-RFLP while out of hundred primer-enzyme combinations studied fifty-seven primer-enzyme combinations revealed mtPCR-RFLP in sugarcane. Differentiation in Saccharum and Erianthus species was found in the psbC - trnS region of the chloroplast digested using enzyme Hae III and also in the trnL region digested using enzyme Taq I. One new finding in our work was the mtPCR-RFLP revealed by nad 4/2-3region restriction digested using enzyme Alu I which was able to differentiate Saccharum species and Erianthus species. Our results may add to the knowledge about organellar genome diversity in sugarcane and may be useful for identification of sugarcane hybrids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".