MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560462529 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167795

Origin and Evolution of Allopolyploid Wheatgrass Elymus fibrosus (Schrenk) Tzvelev (Poaceae: Triticeae) Reveals the Effect of Its Origination on Genetic Diversity

2016· article· en· W2560462529 on OpenAlexafffund
Dechuan Wu, Deng-Min He, Hai-Lan Gu, Panpan Wu, Xu Yi, Weijie Wang, Han-Feng Shi, Dexiang Wu, Genlou Sun

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAnhui Agricultural University
KeywordsTriticeaeElymusBiologyGenetic diversityPloidyChloroplast DNAGenomeEvolutionary biologyBotanyGeneticsGenePoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Origin and evolution of tetraploid Elymus fibrosus (Schrenk) Tzvelev were characterized using low-copy nuclear gene Rpb2 (the second largest subunit of RNA polymerase II), and chloroplast region trnL-trnF (spacer between the tRNA Leu (UAA) gene and the tRNA-Phe (GAA) gene). Ten accessions of E. fibrosus along with 19 Elymus species with StH genomic constitution and diploid species in the tribe Triticeae were analyzed. Chloroplast trnL-trnF sequence data suggested that Pseudoroegneria (St genome) was the maternal donor of E. fibrosus. Rpb2 data confirmed the presence of StH genomes in E. fibrosus, and suggested that St and H genomes in E. fibrosus each is more likely originated from single gene pool. Single origin of E. fibrosus might be one of the reasons causing genetic diversity in E. fibrosus lower than those in E. caninus and E. trachycaulus, which have similar ecological preferences and breeding systems with E. fibrosus, and each was originated from multiple sources. Convergent evolution of St and H copy Rpb2 sequences in some accessions of E. fibrosus might have occurred during the evolutionary history of this allotetraploid.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207