MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255340350 · doi:10.1139/gen-44-1-50

Development of microsatellite markers in potato and their use in phylogenetic and fingerprinting analyses

2001· article· en· W4255340350 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Varda Ashkenazi, Eduard Chani, Uri Lavi, David A. Levy, J. Hillel, Richard E. Veilleux

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMicrosatellitePhylogenetic treeCultivarLocus (genetics)Primer (cosmetics)DNA profilingGeneticsAlleleBotanyGeneDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three genomic libraries were constructed using a mixture of DNA from Solanum phureja Juz. & Buk., and S. chacoense Bitt. Two of the libraries were enriched for ATT and GT repeats (a 27-fold enrichment was achieved). In total, 3500 clones of the conventional library, 1,000 of the library enriched for ATT, and 12,000 of the one enriched for GT were screened with five different repeat motifs, and a total of 18 primer pairs was obtained. Another group of 12 primer pairs was obtained from the SSR-containing sequences in the public databases (18 SSR-containing sequences were utilized). From among 30 newly developed primer pairs, 12 previously published ones, and 12 pairs developed for tomato, 7 were used to identify 12 different potato cultivars and introductions, and 12 were used to study phylogenetic distance among seven wild and cultivated potato species. Two SSR markers were sufficient to discriminate the 12 cultivars. The mean number of alleles per polymorphic locus was 5 for the 12 cultivars and 4.5 for the seven species. The results obtained in this study confirm those achieved in similar studies in other plant species regarding the abundance and use of SSR markers in identifying species and cultivars.

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 score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations47
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207