Complete chloroplast genome of Ilex dabieshanensis: Genome structure, comparative analyses with three traditional Ilex tea species, and its phylogenetic relationships within the family Aquifoliaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ilex dabieshanensis K. Yao & M. B. Deng is not only a highly valued tree species for landscaping, it is also a good material for making kuding tea due to its anti-inflammatory and lipid-lowering medicinal properties. Utilizing next-generation and long-read sequencing technologies, we assembled the whole chloroplast genome of I. dabieshanensis. The genome was 157,218 bp in length, exhibiting a typical quadripartite structure with a large single copy (LSC: 86,607 bp), a small single copy (SSC: 18,427 bp) and a pair of inverted repeat regions (IRA and IRB: each of 26,092 bp). A total of 121 predicted genes were encoded, including 113 distinctive (79 protein-coding genes, 30 tRNAs, and 4 rRNAs) and 8 duplicated (8 protein-coding genes) located in the IR regions. Overall, 132 SSRs and 43 long repeats were detected and could be used as potential molecular markers. Comparative analyses of four traditional Ilex tea species (I. dabieshanensis, I. paraguariensis, I. latifolia and I. cornuta) revealed seven divergent regions: matK-rps16, trnS-psbZ, trnT-trnL, atpB-rbcL, petB-petD, rpl14-rpl16, and rpl32-trnL. These variations might be applicable for distinguishing different species within the genus Ilex. Phylogenetic reconstruction strongly suggested that I. dabieshanensis formed a sister clade to I. cornuta and also showed a close relationship to I. latifolia. The generated chloroplast genome information in our study is significant for Ilex tea germplasm identification, phylogeny and genetic improvement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".