MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386977229 · doi:10.5376/mpb.2023.14.0018

Development of Polymorphic SSR Markers in Chinese Water Chestnut Based on RAD-seq

2023· article· en· W4386977229 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lianfang He, Weiqing Dong, Zuyang Qiu, Huiping Jiang, Lili Liu, Qi Chen, Shiyu Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Plant Breeding · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimer (cosmetics)BiologyGenetic diversityGeneticsGenomeMicrosatelliteDNA sequencingMolecular markerDNAGeneChemistryAllelePopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinese water chestnut ( Eleocharis dulcis ) is an important characteristic vegetable that grows in shallow waters. In order to develop simple sequence repeat (SSR) molecular markers for genetics research on Eleocharis dulcis , simplified genome sequencing by restriction-site associated DNA sequencing (RAD-seq), SSR search and primer design were performed. A total of 5039 SSR loci were detected, from which 4 137 pairs of primer were designed. Among them, the proportion of tri-nucleotides motifs was the highest (1 894), accounting for 45.89% of the total loci; followed by di-nucleotide with 1 406, accounting for 34.07%.. A total of 100 pairs of randomly selected primers were verified. 93% of the primers were successfully amplified. To assess the polymorphism of these primers, two varieties of Chinese water chestnuts were used to amplify the SSR marker using 83 pairs of primers. The 83 pairs of primers generated a total of 232 fragments. A total of 128 fragments were polymorphic. 60 pairs of primers out of 83 pairs generated at least one polymorphic band, and the ratio of polymorphic primers was 72.28%. These SSR markers developed from RAD tags were proved to be effective, which will provide a useful tool for genetic diversity research and molecular breeding in Chinese water chestnuts.

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 score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Plant BreedingSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207