MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808837528 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-27603-x

Molecular detection of small hive beetle Aethina tumida Murray (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae): DNA barcoding and development of a real-time PCR assay

2018· article· en· W2808837528 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dongmei Li, David W. Waite, Qing‐Hai Fan, Sherly George, Linda Semeraro, Mark J. Blacket

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture Victoria
KeywordsBiologyBiosecurityDNA barcodingBroodHoney beeBeekeepingZoologyInvasive speciesEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small hive beetle (SHB), Aethina tumida can feed on honey, pollen and brood in honey bee colonies. It was endemic to Africa, but since 1996 has been detected in a number of countries worldwide, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Italy, Mexico, South Korea, Philippines and the USA where it has had economic effects on local apiculture. To improve SHB identification, we obtained the first reference sequences from the DNA barcoding 5' COI gene region for SHB and some species of the family Nitidulidae associated with beehives. Phylogenetic analysis of SHB COI sequences (3' COI) revealed two divergent lineages, with those from Australia and USA being genetically different from the recent detection in Italy. Many countries, including New Zealand, are currently free from SHB, and require a rapid detection method for biosecurity. Here we present the development and validation of a real-time PCR assay for detection of SHB. The assay showed high specificity and sensitivity for detecting SHB, with no cross-reaction observed with closely related species, such as A. concolor. The real-time PCR is sensitive, detecting the target sequences up to 100 copies/µL. This assay should prove a useful biosecurity tool for rapid detection of SHB worldwide.

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)0.002
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207