MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926647172 · doi:10.1139/gen-2018-0058

DNA barcoding detects floral origin of Indian honey samples

2019· article· en· W2926647172 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Mohanasundaram Saravanan, Gunasekaran Mohanapriya, Ramachandra Laha, Sathishkumar Ramalingam

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBee Products Chemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaDepartment of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaBharathiar UniversityGenome Canada
KeywordsDNA barcodingBiologyAmpliconBarcodegenomic DNAPollenPolymerase chain reactionMitochondrial DNAForageBotanyDNAEvolutionary biologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unique medicinal and nutritional properties of honey are determined by its chemical composition. To evaluate the quality of honey, it is essential to study the surrounding vegetation where honeybees forage. In this study we used conventional melissopalynological and DNA barcoding techniques to determine the floral source of honey samples collected from different districts of the state of Mizoram, India. Pollen grains were isolated and genomic DNA was extracted from the honey samples. PCR amplification was carried out using universal barcode candidates ITS2 and rbcL to identify the plant species. Furthermore, TA cloning was carried out to screen the PCR amplicon libraries to identify the presence of multiple plant species. Results from both the melissopalynological and DNA barcoding analyses identified almost exactly the same 22 species, suggesting that both methods are suitable for analysis. However, DNA barcoding is easier and widely practiced. Hence, it can be concluded that DNA barcoding is a useful tool in determining the medicinal and commercial value of honey.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicBee Products Chemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207