MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767339030 · doi:10.5539/jps.v7n1p1

Metabolic Fingerprinting of Citrus Cultivars and Related Genera Using HPLC and Multivariate Analysis

2017· article· en· W2767339030 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tetsuya Matsukawa, Nobumasa Nito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarBiologyHybridMultivariate statisticsMultivariate analysisBotanyTaxonomy (biology)Genetic diversityStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Citrus taxonomy is very complex and confusing, because of asexual reproduction and sexual compatibility between Citrus and related genera. Metabolic diversity was studied in Citrus, Poncirus and Fortunella cultivars by the high performance liquid chromatography technique combined with multivariate statistical analysis. Chromatograms obtained from cultivars of the same species showed similar elution profiles. These results suggested that metabolic profiles carry characteristics of hybrid origin. To confirm the similarities among the Citrus species and their cultivars, multivariate statistical analysis was applied to the chromatograms. According to hierarchical cluster analysis, all cultivars used in this study were divided into three major groups, which largely correspond to pummelo, mandarin and lemon. Hybrids were clustered together with their hybrid origin or their related cultivars. Our results indicated that the metabolic fingerprinting method provides an insight into the phylogenic relationships among Citrus species and cultivars.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesisFrench-language works237,207