MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908852818 · doi:10.1002/aps3.1212

Development of novel <scp>EST</scp> ‐ <scp>SSR</scp> markers for <i>Ephedra sinica</i> (Ephedraceae) by transcriptome database mining

2019· article· en· W2908852818 on OpenAlexaff
Si‐Qian Jiao, Yan‐Qiang Sun, Dongxu Zhang, Qiong Gao, Yuqing Jin, Hui Liu, Yongpeng Ma, Yong Yang, Ilga Porth, Jian‐Feng Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueApplications in Plant Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsBiologyTranscriptomeGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Premise of the Study Ephedra sinica (Ephedraceae) is a gymnosperm shrub with a wide distribution across Central and Eastern Asia. It is widely cultivated as a medicinal plant, but its wild populations are monitored to determine whether protection is needed. Methods and Results Thirty‐six microsatellite markers, including 11 polymorphic markers, were developed from E. distachya RNA ‐Seq data deposited in the National Center for Biotechology Information db EST database. Among 100 genotyped E. sinica individuals originating from five different population groups, the allele number ranged from three to 22 per locus. Levels of observed and expected heterozygosity ranged from 0 to 0.866 (average 0.176) and 0 to 0.876 (average 0.491), respectively. Allelic polymorphism information content ranged from 0.000 to 0.847 (average 0.333). Cross‐species amplifications were successfully conducted with two related Ephedra species for all 11 di‐ or trinucleotide simple sequence repeats. Conclusions This study provides the first set of microsatellite markers for genetic monitoring and surveying of this medicinal plant.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplications in Plant SciencesSame topicBotanical Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207