MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277864219 · doi:10.1139/gen-2015-0132

Genome size variation in the genus <i>Avena</i>

2016· article· en· W2277864219 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Honghai Yan, Sara L. Martin, Wubishet A. Bekele, Robert G. Latta, Axel Diederichsen, Yuanying Peng, Nicholas A. Tinker

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyploidGenomeGenome sizeBiologyPloidyGermplasmAvenaGenusGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGenome evolutionBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genome size is an indicator of evolutionary distance and a metric for genome characterization. Here, we report accurate estimates of genome size in 99 accessions from 26 species of Avena. We demonstrate that the average genome size of C genome diploid species (2C = 10.26 pg) is 15% larger than that of A genome species (2C = 8.95 pg), and that this difference likely accounts for a progression of size among tetraploid species, where AB < AC < CC (average 2C = 16.76, 18.60, and 21.78 pg, respectively). All accessions from three hexaploid species with the ACD genome configuration had similar genome sizes (average 2C = 25.74 pg). Genome size was mostly consistent within species and in general agreement with current information about evolutionary distance among species. Results also suggest that most of the polyploid species in Avena have experienced genome downsizing in relation to their diploid progenitors. Genome size measurements could provide additional quality control for species identification in germplasm collections, especially in cases where diploid and polyploid species have similar morphology.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations64
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207