Microsatellite repeats are not randomly distributed within Norway spruce (<i>Picea abies </i>K.) expressed sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Norway spruce (Picea abies K.) cDNA library obtained from vegetative bud tissue was screened for the presence of (AG)n and (AC)n microsatellite repeats. Ten (AG)n and six (AC)n microsatellites were found, with an average length of 25.5 repeat units. Most of the microsatellites are simple perfect repeats. The microsatellite distribution within the clones is clearly non-random, with different classes of repeats lying in different positions relative to the coding region and in a highly conserved orientation. An estimate of the frequency of dinucleotide microsatellites in expressed regions was obtained, showing that SSRs (simple sequence repeats) are found in genes about 20 times less frequently than in random genomic clones, with (AG)n repeats more frequent than (AC)n repeats. Potential applications of these sequences as expressed region-based molecular markers are shown by developing six SSR markers for the detection of natural variation in Norway spruce populations and testing two of them for the identification of illegitimate progenies from a mapping population. Key words: Picea abies, microsatellites, SSRs, ESTs, population genetics, trees.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".