053 The Origin of Raphanus sativus Based on the DNA Sequences from Different Organelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two evolutionary pathways in the genus of Brassica , one is rapa/oleracea lineage and the other is nigra lineage. Based on the morphological characteristics and nuclear RAPD or RFLP markers, genus Raphanus was thought more closely related to nigra lineage than to rapa/oleracea lineage (Song et al., 1990; Thormann et al., 1994). RFLP data of both chloroplast and mitochondria revealed that Raphanus is more closely related to rapa/oleracea lineage (Palmer and Herbon, 1988; Warwick and Black, 1991; Pradhan et al., 1992). We have previously demonstrated that Raphanus sativus is more closely related to nigra lineage using nuclear intergenic spacer between 5S rDNA and internal transcribed spacer region between 18S and 25S rDNA. In this study, we analyzed DNA sequences from different regions of chloroplast and showed that Raphanus sativus was closely related to rapa/oleracea lineage than to nigra lineage. These results suggest that Raphanus sativus is a hybrid between B. rapa/oleracea and B nigra lineages as proposed by Song et al (1990). The split time between these two lineages and the divergent time of Raphanus was also determined based on these chloroplast DNA sequences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".