MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179150398 · doi:10.3390/agronomy11101897

Cytological and Molecular Characterization for Ploidy Determination in Yams (Dioscorea spp.)

2021· article· en· W3179150398 on OpenAlexaff
Cobes Gatarira, Lucia Sládeková, Alžběta Němečková, Denisa Šimoníková, Rajneesh Paliwal, Asrat Asfaw, Michael Abberton, Badara Guèye, Robert Asiedu, Jana Čížková, Eva Hřibová, Jaroslav Doležel, David De Koeyer, Victor O. Adetimirin, Ranjana Bhattacharjee

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAfrican Union Commission
KeywordsPloidyBiologyDioscoreaChromosomePolyploidBotanyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yam (Dioscorea spp.) is a monocotyledonous herbaceous vine plant grown in the tropics and subtropics. It is a multi-species plant with varied intra- and interspecific ploidy levels. Of the 600 species, 11 are cultivated supporting the livelihood of over 300 million people. The paucity of information on ploidy and the genomic constitution is a significant challenge to the crop’s genetic improvement through crossbreeding. The objective of this study was to investigate the ploidy levels of 236 accessions across six cultivated and two wild species using chromosome counting, flow cytometry and genotyping-based ploidy determination methods. Results obtained from chromosome counting and genotyping-based ploidy determination were in agreement. In majority of the accessions, chromosome counting and flow cytometry were congruent, allowing future rapid screening of ploidy levels using flow cytometry. Among cultivated accessions, 168 (71%) were diploid, 50 (21%) were triploid, and 12 (5%) were tetraploid. Two wild species included in the study were diploids. Resolution of ploidy level in yams offers opportunities for implementing successful breeding programmes through intra- and interspecific hybridization.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207