A basic dd<scp>RAD</scp>seq two‐enzyme protocol performs well with herbarium and silica‐dried tissues across four genera
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: The ability to sequence genome-scale data from herbarium specimens would allow for the economical development of data sets with broad taxonomic and geographic sampling that would otherwise not be possible. Here, we evaluate the utility of a basic double-digest restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (ddRADseq) protocol using DNAs from four genera extracted from both silica-dried and herbarium tissue. METHODS: were processed with a ddRADseq protocol. The effects of DNA degradation, taxon, and specimen age were assessed. RESULTS: Although taxon, preservation method, and specimen age affected data recovery, large phylogenetically informative data sets were obtained from the majority of samples. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that herbarium samples can be incorporated into ddRADseq project designs, and that specimen age can be used as a rapid on-site guide for sample choice. The detailed protocol we provide will allow users to pursue herbarium-based ddRADseq projects that minimize the expenses associated with fieldwork and sample evaluation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 it