MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291747225 · doi:10.5376/mpr.2022.12.0004

The Differences and Genetic Relationships of 4 Dendrobium Species Based on High Throughput GBS-SNP Markers

2022· article· en· W4291747225 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicinal Plant Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGABA and Rice Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDendrobiumBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The differences and genetic relationships of 4 Dendrobium species ( Dendrobium huoshanense, Dendrobium officinale, Dendrobium moniliforme, Dendrobium Fanjingshanense ) were analyzed based on high throughput SNP markers obtained by GBS, using  Dendrobium catenatum  as the reference genome, for providing reference for the study of these 4 Dendrobium species. The results showed that the number of clean reads per each sample in  D.  huoshanense ,  D .  officinale ,  D .  moniliforme ,  D .  Fanjingshanense  were 1 300 724, 1 286 162, 1 380 009 and 1 170 337, respectively, and the number of SNPs per each sample were 1 507 746, 893 333, 1 364 605 and 1 227 006, respectively. The genetic structure based on Admixture software revealed that the samples of  D .  officinale were clustered into one branch, and the remaining Dendrobium samples were clustered into the other branch, when the best K value was 2; when k = 3, the samples of  D .  officinale  were grouped into one cluster, some samples of  D .  huoshanense , all samples of  D .  moniliforme  and  D. fanjingshanense  were grouped into the second cluster, and some samples of  D .  huoshanense  were grouped into the third cluster; When k = 4, it was divided into four branches: the samples of  D .  officinale  were grouped one branch, the samples of  D .  moniliforme  and  D .  fanjingshanense  were grouped one branch, the samples of  D .  huoshanense were divided into two branches, which was similar to the result of an unrooted neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree (NJ tree); Furthermore, principal coordinates analyses (PCoA) revealed that 91 Dendrobium samples were classed into three cluster. All samples of  D. of ficinale  and  D. hu oshanense  were grouped together, respectively, and the samples of  D. monil iforme  and  D . fanjingshan ense  were grouped together. According to the results of this study, the genetic relation of  D. off icinale  and the other 3 species of Dendrobium are relatively distant, and the genetic relationship of  D. mo niliforme  and  D.  fanjingshanense  were relatively close, 72 samples of  D .  huoshanense  in the study were divided into two branches, the genetic relationship in one of which was relatively close to  D .  moniliforme  and  D .  fanjingshanense . The study verified that the genetic relationship between different Dendrobium species or different species of plants was investigated using SNPs detected by GBS.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.146 · 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