MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386521582 · doi:10.1111/pbr.13141

Development of KASP fingerprinting panel for clonal identification in red raspberry (<scp><i>Rubus idaeus</i></scp> L.)

2023· article· en· W4386521582 on OpenAlexaff
Shaun J. Clare, Ryan M. King, Michael A. Hardigan, Michael Dossett, Sara Montanari, David Chagné, Cherie Ochsenfeld, Caitlin Britton, Ryan A. Rapp, Nahla Bassil

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)Columbia Bible College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBlowing a raspberryGeneticsSNP genotypingGenotypingRubusIdentification (biology)Single-nucleotide polymorphismDNA profilingGenomeAlleleComputational biologyGenotypeBotanyGeneHorticultureDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Red raspberry is an economically important horticultural crop that is known for its fruit's sweet flavour and nutritional value. A reliable and economic genotyping platform is needed to facilitate clonal/variety identification. Previous attempts for clonal identification utilized morphological traits or low‐throughput, difficult to score dinucleotide‐containing simple sequence repeat molecular markers. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), despite having lower allelic diversity, are numerous across the genome and more easily converted to high‐throughput assays restoring differential power. In this study, we use the kompetitive allele‐specific PCR (KASP™) chemistry, an affordable and high‐throughput platform, to develop a panel of SNPs to distinguish a diverse collection of red raspberry accessions for clonal identification. The panel consists of 48 KASP assays that show high concordance with whole genome sequencing, allelic balance, and recovery rate and a minimal set of 24 assays that distinguished the same accessions differentiated by the larger panel.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207