MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889066067 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2018-0296

Comparative and phylogenetic analyses of 26 Magnoliaceae species based on complete chloroplast genome sequences

2018· article· en· W2889066067 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yamei Shen, Kai Chen, Cuihua Gu, Shaoyu Zheng, Li Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnoliaceaeNdhFBiologyPhylogenetic treeChloroplast DNAGenomeBotanyPhylogeneticsGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnoliaceae is a family of dicotyledonous plants with primitive flowers and is one of the oldest families of flowering plants. In this paper, the chloroplast genomes of 26 species of Magnoliaceae were contrasted and compared to help clarify the relationships among them. The size of the 26 Magnoliaceae chloroplast genomes ranged from 158 177 bp to 160 183 bp, and approximately 1298 simple-sequence repeats were detected. For long-repeat sequences, 197 repeat loci, including 144 forward repeats, 52 palindromic repeats, and 1 reverse repeat, were detected. In four species, an abnormal gene, rpl22, contained premature stop codons. Moreover, three noncoding regions (ccsA-ndhD, ndhD-psaC, and trnH-psbA) with a nucleotide diversity (Pi) value greater than 0.02 and six coding genes (ycf1, petL, matK, psbT, rps19, and ndhF) with a Pi value of no less than 0.008 were identified (this information is important in resolving relationships within the Magnolia genus). The maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) trees had the same topological structures, with high support rates among 20 species, i.e., excluding Magnolia dealbata, Magnolia pyramidata, Magnolia dandyi, Magnolia aromatica, Magnolia conifera, and Magnolia glaucifolia. On the whole, these data represent valuable resources for Magnoliaceae chloroplast genomics and will be useful in future phylogenetic studies.

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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesisFrench-language works237,207