Development of a second generation linkage map for almond using RAPD and SSR markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifty-four RAPD (random amplified polymorphic DNA) markers and 6 SSRs (simple sequence repeats) were included in a molecular marker map with 120 RFLPs (restriction fragment length polymorphisms) and 7 isozyme genes previously constructed using the offspring of a cross between the almond (Prunus amygdalus) cultivars 'Ferragnès' and 'Tuono'. Only highly reproducible RAPDs segregating 1:1 were used. To identify these markers, a total of 325 primers were screened, from which 41 produced RAPDs useful for mapping. Polymorphism was detected in six of the eight Prunus SSRs (simple sequence repeats) studied, thus enabling these to be mapped. All markers were placed on the 8 linkage groups previously identified. The number of new markers included in the map of 'Ferragnès' was 33 for a total of 126, and 30 in the map of 'Tuono' for a total of 99. The sizes of the maps of 'Ferragnès' (415 cM) and 'Tuono' (416 cM) were similar, representing a 5% increase over the maps constructed solely with isozymes and RFLPs. The estimated total size of the almond map was of 457 cM. Some markers were placed in zones with low density of markers and others in the extreme of linkage groups. The use of RAPD markers to complete genetic maps constructed with transferable markers is discussed.Key words: almond, Prunus amygdalus, RAPD, SSR, mapping.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".