MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336999618 · doi:10.1002/tax.595012

Phylogenetic investigation of <i>Avena</i> diploid species and the maternal genome donor of <i>Avena</i> polyploids

2010· article· en· W2336999618 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanying Peng, Yuming Wei, Bernard R. Baum, Qiantao Jiang, Xiujin Lan, Shoufen Dai, Youliang Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueTaxon · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyploidBiologyGenomePloidyPhylogenetic treeGeneticsGenome evolutionEvolutionary biologyBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigated the species and genome relationships among 82 Avena accessions representing thirteen diploid species (A and C genomes), six tetraploids (AB and AC genomes) and four hexaploids (ACD genome) to infer the evolutionary pathways in Avena using the plastid matK gene and the trnL‐F region. The matK and trnL‐F sequences pointed to the A‐genome diploid species as maternal parents of the polyploid species. Furthermore, different A‐genome diploid species might have served as the A genome donor of several different polyploid species. The probable ancestor of most hexaploid species, of the AC‐genome tetraploids, and of the AB‐genome species A. agadiriana was A. wiestii (As genome). The likely donor of the other three AB‐ genome tetraploids was A. hirtula (also As genome) and A. damascena (Ad genome) appears to be the A genome donor of the hexaploid A. fatua. The A genome origin of A. fatua differs from that for the other hexaploid Avena species, which is different from the common assumption that the hexaploid species evolved from a single hexaploid ancestor followed by gain or loss of domestication genes. Thus, several separate maternal lineages might be involved in different polyploid species.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTaxonSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207