MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2182018593

Application of microsatellite DNA primers for the analysis of the genetic variability of Lithuanian native goose breeds

2006· article· en· W2182018593 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vykintas Baublys, Algimantas Paulauskas, Aniolas Sruoga

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosatelliteGooseWaterfowlBiologyPrimer (cosmetics)HybridPopulationWhite (mutation)GeneticsEcologyAlleleBotanyGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2 Institute of Ecology, Vilnius University, Akademijos g. 2, LT-08412, Vilnius, Lithuania The aim of our study was to assess the use of waterfowl species specific primers in order to detect polymorphism in Lithuanian native geese breeds (Vistinės, Skarulės and Vistinės-Skarulės hybrids – Native Mixed). Also, the White-fronted geese species was investigated for comparison. The microsatellite DNA analysis was carried out using 11 microsatellite primers from which only 4 gave a positive PCR product: Sfimu1 (some wild waterfowl species specific marker), TTUCG-1, TTUCG-2, TTUCG-4 (Canada geese specific marker). According to our data, it is possible to use wild waterfowl specific microsatellite DNA markers for a comparative microsatellite DNA analysis of the White-fronted geese species and 2 Lithuanian breeds (Vistinės and Skarulės), and their hybrids (Native Mixed) were obtained by interbreeding these breeds. We found that the TTUCG-1 primer, due to monomorphic PCR products, was not suitable for the population analysis of Skarulės and the Vistinės geese breeds. Due to the absence of the amplified product, the TTUCG-4 primer is not suitable for hybrid geese microsatellite DNA analysis.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→