MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250540554 · doi:10.5376/mpb.2019.10.0007

Construction of Fingerprint of <i>Michelia</i> Germplasm by Fluorescent SSR Markers

2019· article· en· W4250540554 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xudong He, Zhongyi Jiao, Jiwei Zheng, Dou QuanQin, Libin Huang, Baosong Wang, Ruifang Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Plant Breeding · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermplasmBiologyLoss of heterozygosityGenotypingMicrosatelliteAlleleLocus (genetics)GeneticsGenotypeBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, a fingerprinting system for 16 Michelia  germplasms was established using high-throughput genotyping of fluorescent simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. In total, 102 alleles were detected using 13 pairs of SSR markers from closely related species, and the number of alleles per locus ranged from 5 to 11, with an average of 7.8 alleles. Observed heterozygosity (Ho), expected heterozygosity (He), and polymorphic information content (PIC) ranged from 0.1250 to 0.5625 (mean 0.3650), 0.6703 to 0.9113 (mean 0.8099), and 0.5748 to 0.8714 (mean 0.7515), respectively. Among the four selected core primer pairs, the combinations LT106 and SGA5, LT106 and LT58, and SGA5 and MMA51 could unambiguously distinguish 16 Michelia  germplasms. A cluster analysis showed the similarity coefficient of the 16 Michelia  germplasms to range from 0.70 to 0.90, and different individuals from the same species clustered in the same branch. The fluorescence SSR genotyping system established in this study was efficient, rapid, and accurate; moreover, this approach provides a theoretical basis for identifying germplasms and for the protection of new varieties of the genus Michelia , and it provides a robust foundation for further breeding development of Michelia sp.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Plant BreedingSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207