MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183228605 · doi:10.21273/jashs.127.1.98

Genetic Relationships among Lowbush Blueberry Genotypes as Determined by Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA Analysis

2002· article· en· W2183228605 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen L. Burgher, Andrew R. Jamieson, Xuewen Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRAPDBiologyGenetic similaritySimilarity (geometry)GenotypeDendrogramBotanyGeneticsGenetic diversityPopulationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty-six genotypes of lowbush blueberry ( Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton) representing four geographical zones (Maine, United States; New Brunswick, northern Nova Scotia, and western Nova Scotia, Canada) were selected to obtain DNA fingerprints and to estimate genetic similarity by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysis. The genotypes were either native accessions or selections from crosses involving native accessions as parents or grandparents. Thirty 10-base RAPD primers were initially screened; 11 proved to be polymorphic, resulting in 73 consistent RAPD bands. All 26 genotypes could be distinguished by their unique RAPD banding patterns and three unlabeled samples were correctly identified. The RAPD band data set was analyzed with Genstat5 to calculate similarity and distance matrices. Average similarity across all genotypes was 56%. Results from average linkage cluster analysis were used to construct a dendogram which demonstrated six main clusters with an average similarity linkage of 70%. The selection `Fundy' and its parent `Augusta' clustered at 77% similarity. The corresponding principal coordinate analysis supported the clusters and identified two distinct outliers. There was a small association by geographic grouping for five genotypes from Maine. It was concluded that RAPD analysis is a useful tool for genotypic identification and estimates of genetic similarity in lowbush blueberry.

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)0.001
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 score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207