MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2499617645 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2016-0199

Complete chloroplast genome sequence of the avocado: gene organization, comparative analysis, and phylogenetic relationships with other Lauraceae

2016· article· en· W2499617645 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu Song, Xin Yao, Yun‐Hong Tan, Yi Gan, Richard T. Corlett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsPerseaLauraceaeChloroplast DNABiologyPolyphylyMagnoliaceaeInverted repeatPhylogenetic treeBotanyGenomeGeneticsGeneClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complete chloroplast sequence of the avocado (Persea americana Mill.), a popular tropical fruit tree, was determined in this study. The plastome consists of 152 723 bp, with a typical circular structure including inverted repeats (IRs) 40 104 bp in length separated by a large single-copy region (LSC) and a small single-copy region (SSC) of 93 795 bp and 18 824 bp, respectively. Potential mutation sites, including 61 repeats and 679 simple sequence repeats, were accurately located in the avocado plastome. Compared with the plastomes of five other related Lauraceae, 25 highly variable regions and six micro-inversions were identified, and the contraction event of the IR regions was observed. However, the plastomes of Lauraceae are extremely evolutionarily conservative, with only 0.32% sequence divergence, which is surprisingly low for angiosperms. Further phylogenetic analyses were conducted using eight complete plastomes of Lauraceae and seven barcoding sequences from 23 Persea species. These data support a close relationship between the genera Persea and Machilus and suggest that Persea is polyphyletic.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations57
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207