Rapid identification of polymorphic sequences in non‐model fungal species: the <scp>PHYLORPH</scp> method tested in <i>Armillaria</i> species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Development of molecular markers for phylogenetic, population genetics and phylogeographic studies remains arduous in non‐model species with low or no genomic resources. Sequencing the whole or a large part of the genome of the target species using next‐generation sequencing technologies is considered a promising method, although it still needs a large investment in bioinformatics. To quickly find polymorphic markers in fungal species, we tested an alternative method, named PHYLORPH . This method allows users to quickly target polymorphic regions of single copy genes in fungi using public databases. We applied this method to Armillaria species, which are important fungal pathogens and saprophytes playing a central role in the dynamics of forest ecosystems worldwide. We isolated 32 single copy genes with numerous single nucleotide polymorphism ( SNP ) sites. A genetic analysis of two French populations validated the polymorphism of 80 among 92 SNP s tested, and seven of these sequences exactly reconstructed the known phylogenetic tree of four tested Armillaria species. These results confirmed that the PHYLORPH method is efficient to identify various markers at both the intra‐ and interspecific levels for fungal species with no or few previous genetic markers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".