qPCR detection versus microscopy observations for assessing presence–absence of Didymosphenia geminata in Quebec rivers (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microscopic versus qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction) analyses were compared for the detection of Didymosphenia geminata in biofilms and water filtrates from seven Gaspésie rivers (Canada). For the qPCR approach, two DNA extraction kits (QIAamp DNA Micro Kit, Qiagen and PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit, Mo Bio Laboratories) and two pairs of primers were considered. The pair of primers D602F/D753Rext did not amplify D. geminata DNA whereas the pair of primers D602F/D753R was specific for D. geminata. Presence-absence diagnosis based on qPCR and microscopic analyses were consistent: D. geminata was detected in six of the seven rivers, both in the biofilm and filtrate samples. However, technical replications were needed at certain sites to observe the presence of D. geminata cells by microscopy. This underscores the necessity of replicate analyses, which is cost-effective to achieve when using qPCR due to the capacity to process tens of samples in a single PCR run in the context of a large scale assessment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".