MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082976862 · doi:10.1139/gen-2020-0011

Genotyping by sequencing for SNP marker development in onion

2020· article· en· W3082976862 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joanne A. Labate, Jeffrey C. Glaubitz, Michael J. Havey

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGarlic and Onion Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyGermplasmGeneticsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypingSNP genotypingGenomeGenetic diversitySanger sequencingSNP arraySNPReference genomeGenetic markerMicrosatelliteGenotypeDNA sequencingAlleleBotanyGenePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Onion (Allium cepa) is not highly tractable for development of molecular markers due to its large (16 gigabases per 1C) nuclear genome. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are useful for genetic characterization and marker-aided selection of onion because of codominance and common occurrence in elite germplasm. We completed genotyping by sequencing (GBS) to identify SNPs in onion using 46 F 2 plants, parents of the F 2 plants (Ailsa Craig 43 and Brigham Yellow Globe 15-23), two doubled haploid (DH) lines (DH2107 and DH2110), and plants from 94 accessions in the USDA National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS). SNPs were called using the TASSEL 3.0 Universal Network Enabled Analysis (UNEAK) bioinformatics pipeline. Sequences from the F 2 and DH plants were used to construct a pseudo-reference genome against which genotypes from all accessions were scored. Quality filters were used to identify a set of 284 high quality SNPs, which were placed onto an existing genetic map for the F 2 family. Accessions showed a moderate level of diversity (mean H e = 0.341) and evidence of inbreeding (mean F = 0.592). GBS is promising for SNP discovery in onion, although lack of a reference genome required extensive custom scripts for bioinformatics analyses to identify high quality markers.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.161 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGarlic and Onion StudiesFrench-language works237,207