Relieving efforts in palm-tree tissue sampling for population genetics analyses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The young leaves are the main source of nucleic acids for population genetic studies in palm-trees; however, the access to this tissue may be limited by specific features of each species. Using root tissues as an alternative source of nucleic acids could facilitate the sampling in large populations. This study tests root tissue viability as an alternative nucleic acids source (root vs. leaf) and explores different protocols (tissue storage and DNA purification methods) to obtain high-quality DNA samples. The results showed no significant differences in DNA concentration and quality for the comparisons of tissue source (leaf vs. root) and DNA purification method (manual vs. kit). For tissue storage method, DNA concentration was significantly higher for root tissues stored in 70% and 90% alcohol solutions versus those obtained from leaf tissue, however for the quality parameters, no differences were found. Results showed the effective potential of using root tissue as an alternative source for nucleic acids, which could facilitate populations sampling of palm-tree species for future studies and this methodological alternative could be applied to other plant systems with similar sampling challenges.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".