MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026419789 · doi:10.1139/gen-2019-0221

DMSO and betaine significantly enhance the PCR amplification of ITS2 DNA barcodes from plants

2020· article· en· W3026419789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Varadharajan Bhooma, Madasamy Parani

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsBetaineBiologyPolymerase chain reactionFormamideDNA barcodingGeneticsDNAMolecular biologyBiochemistryGeneZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ITS2 marker is highly efficient in species discrimination but its application in DNA barcoding is limited due to huge variations in the PCR success rate. We have hypothesized that higher GC content and the resultant secondary structures formed during annealing might hinder the PCR amplification of ITS2. To test this hypothesis, we selected 12 species from 12 different families in which ITS2 was not amplified under standard PCR reaction conditions. In these samples, DMSO, formamide, betaine, and 7-deaza-dGTP were evaluated for their ability to improve the PCR success rate. The highest PCR success rate (91.6%) was observed with 5% DMSO, followed by 1 M betaine (75%), 50 μM 7-deaza-dGTP (33.3%), and 3% formamide (16.6%). The one sample that did not amplify with DMSO was amplified by adding 1 M betaine. However, combining DMSO and betaine in the same reaction did not improve the PCR. Therefore, to achieve the highest PCR success rate for ITS2, it is recommended to include 5% DMSO by default and substitute it with 1 M betaine only in the case of failed reactions. When this strategy was tested in 50 species from 43 genera and 29 families, the PCR success rate of ITS2 increased from 42% to 100%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207