MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546666212 · doi:10.12705/655.9

Retrieval of hundreds of nuclear loci from herbarium specimens

2016· article· en· W2546666212 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michelle Hart, Laura L. Forrest, James A. Nicholls, Catherine Kidner

Bibliographic record

VenueTaxon · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilNERC Biomolecular Analysis FacilityRural and Environment Science and Analytical Services DivisionSight Research UKUniversité LavalNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHerbariumTreasureBiodiversityBiologyDNA sequencingNuclear DNAEvolutionary biologyGenusGeographyGeneticsDNAEcologyArchaeologyGeneMitochondrial DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Herbaria are unparalleled collections of biodiversity information representing the world's flora. However, this treasure has remained largely inaccessible to genetic studies, frequently limited by the low yields of poor‐quality DNA. Next‐generation sequencing (NGS) has transformed every field of biological research. The different strategies for accessing genetic data using NGS are changing the direction of biodiversity research—we are no longer constrained by a relatively small number of markers for non‐model organisms, by time and cost limited sample sizes, or by incomplete datasets due to recalcitrant DNA extractions or PCR amplification failure. Here we show that targeted enrichment through hybrid capture can be used to generate hundreds of kilobases of nuclear sequence data of the Neotropical genus Inga , from herbarium specimens as old as 180 years and using as little as 16 ng of degraded DNA.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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)0.0040.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations130
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTaxonSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207