MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554873816 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.3.397d

053 The Origin of Raphanus sativus Based on the DNA Sequences from Different Organelles

2000· article· en· W2554873816 on OpenAlexaff
Yau-Wen Yang, Pai-Yean Tai, Ying Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaphanusBiologyLineage (genetic)Chloroplast DNABrassica rapaRAPDBotanyBrassica oleraceaMitochondrial DNAInternal transcribed spacerGeneticsGenomeGeneRibosomal RNAPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207