MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249582535 · doi:10.1139/g00-002

Low-copy microsatellite markers for<i>Pinus taeda</i>L.

2000· article· en· W4249582535 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine G. Elsik, Virginia T. Minihan, Sarah E. Hall, Ann M. Scarpa, Claire G. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsMicrosatelliteLocus (genetics)AlleleMendelian inheritanceRestriction fragment length polymorphismExpressed sequence tagGenomeGenetic markerGenePolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eighteen low-copy and genomic microsatellite markers were tested for Mendelian inheritance and then assayed in 41 Pinus taeda L. samples drawn from five regions in the southern United States. The PCR products had multiple alleles, high levels of polymorphism, and little non-specific priming. Fifteen of the 18 markers were informative for a P. taeda three-generation RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) pedigree, and a P. taeda population survey revealed three to 28 alleles per locus. The highest allele numbers and polymorphic information content (PIC) values were associated with complex repeat sequences and (or) with sequences consisting of the longer strings of perfect repeats. The abundance of low- to rare-frequency alleles also accounted for high PIC values in both types of markers. Low-copy microsatellites are useful for the large, complex pine genome, especially in the absence of entire gene sequences in public databases and with the low levels of polymorphism in markers developed from expressed sequence tags (ESTs).Key words: loblolly pine, conifers, gymnosperms, trinucleotide repeat motifs.

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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations62
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207