MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392252592 · doi:10.1270/jsbbs.23048

DNAMarkMaker: streamlining ARMS and CAPS marker development from resequencing data with NGS short reads

2024· article· en· W4392252592 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tenta Segawa, Sorachi Saiga, Marina Takata, Riki Kumazawa, Makishi Hara, Hiromoto Yamakawa, Hiroki Takagi

Bibliographic record

VenueBreeding Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsResearch Organization of Information and Systems
KeywordsBiologyComputational biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA markers serve as essential tools in breeding selection and genetic analysis. However, developing DNA markers can be time-consuming and labor-intensive due to the need to identify polymorphisms between cultivars/lines and to design suitable primers. To address these challenges, we have developed DNAMarkMaker, a tool designed to automate the process of primer design for Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS) and Cleaved Amplified Polymorphic Sequences (CAPS) markers, utilizing resequencing data. One key feature of DNAMarkMaker is its user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI), ensuring its accessibility and ease of use, even for researchers not well-versed in bioinformatics. We confirmed DNAMarkMaker's applicability by developing DNA markers for rice, potato, and turnip-each representing distinct genome structures: homozygous diploid, heterozygous autotetraploid, and heterozygous diploid, respectively. DNAMarkMaker will contribute to the rapid and efficient development of DNA markers, accelerating breeding and genetic analysis in various crops.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.013

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreeding ScienceSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207