MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215906799 · doi:10.3390/genes12121907

Diversity, Dispersal and Mode of Reproduction of Amanita exitialis in Southern China

2021· article· en· W3215906799 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Zhong, Jianping Xu, Zhang Ping

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalDiversity (politics)ReproductionBiologyChinaEcologySouthern chinaZoologyGeographyDemographyArchaeologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amanita exitialis is a poisonous mushroom and has caused many deaths in southern China. In this study, we collected 118 fruiting bodies of A. exitialis from seven different sites in Guangdong Province in southern China and investigated their genetic relationships using 14 polymorphic molecular markers. These 14 markers grouped the 118 fruiting bodies into 20 multilocus genotypes. Among these 20 genotypes, eight were each found only once while the remaining 12 were each represented by two to 54 fruiting bodies. Interestingly, among the 12 shared genotypes, four were shared between/among local populations that were separated by as far as over 80 km, a result consistent with secondary homothallic reproduction and long-distance spore dispersal. Despite the observed gene flow, significant genetic differentiations were found among the local populations, primarily due to the over-representation of certain genotypes within individual local populations. STRUCTURE analyses revealed that the 118 fruiting bodies belonged to three genetic clusters, consistent with divergence within this species in this geographic region. Interestingly, we found an excess of heterozygous individuals at both the local and the total sample level, suggesting potential inbreeding depression and heterozygous advantage in these populations of A. exitialis. We discuss the implications of our results for understanding the life cycle, dispersal, and evolution of this poisonous mushroom.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207