MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388112807 · doi:10.17581/bp.2023.12209

Genetic diversity of the Rhododendron subsection Ledum species in Sakhalin Island: data from chloroplast DNA markers variability

2023· article· en· W4388112807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. R. Iunusova, М. А. Полежаева, Elena A. Marchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueBotanica Pacifica · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyAnalysis of molecular varianceGenetic diversityIntergenic regionChloroplast DNAPhylogenetic treeGenetic variationBotanyPopulationHaplotypeEvolutionary biologyGenetic structureGeneticsGenotypeGeneGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high genetic variability was revealed in the populations of the Rhododendron subsection Ledum species complex in Sakhalin. In total, 94 individuals from natural populations of the four sympatric species of Labrador tea (R. tomentosum, R. subarcticum, R. tolmachevii and R. hypoleucum) were analyzed to evaluate the genetic variation in the territory of the Sakhalin Island and in two mainland populations. The haplotype diversity of five chloroplast intergenic spacers (trnH–psbA, petB–petD, 3’trnV (UAC)–ndhC, K2R–K707, atpB–rbcL) was quite high. There were 16 haplotypes (h1–h16) identified; h1, h2 and h4 are the most common, the rest were rare and no species-specific ones were found. Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) indicate that about 37 % of the genetic diversity is due to among population differences (FST = 0.37, p < 0.001). Molecular phylogenetic analysis based on chloroplast DNA data did not reveal a clear species structure, but revealed a trend towards the isolation of two genetic groups: including a group of samples from the southern and the middle parts of Sakhalin Island.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanica PacificaSame topicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesisFrench-language works237,207