MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388489688 · doi:10.1186/s13104-023-06585-8

Establishing reliable DNA barcoding primers for jumping plant lice (Psylloidea, Hemiptera)

2023· article· en· W4388489688 on OpenAlexaff
Saskia Bastin, Diana M. Percy, Felipe Siverio

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgencia Canaria de Investigación, Innovación y Sociedad de la InformaciónUniversidad de La Laguna
KeywordsPrimer (cosmetics)PsylloideaBiologyDNA barcodingGeneticsHemipteraEvolutionary biologyBotanyPEST analysisHomoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: DNA Barcoding has proven to be a reliable method for rapid insect identification. The success of this method is based on the amplification of a specific region, the 'Folmer' barcode region at the 5´ start of the cytochrome c oxidase 1 gene (cox1), with universal primers. Previous studies showed failures of standard "universal" primers to amplify this region in psyllids. The aim of the study was the design of a new alternative more reliable primer combination for taxa of the superfamily Psylloidea and its comparison with the performance of the standard "universal" Folmer-primers. RESULTS: A newly designed degenerate forward primer LCOP-F was developed following comparison of the sequence alignment of the priming site of "universal" primer LCO1490 and the standard insect forward primer LepF1. When combined with the "universal" reverse primer, HCO2198, this new primer pairing was able to generate barcode sequence for all 36 species in 20 genera across the five families of psyllids tested in this study, and these primers were found to be more universally reliable across psyllid taxa than other primer pairs tested.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.119 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Research NotesSame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207