MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392285194 · doi:10.3390/plants13050691

Development and Assessment of SNP Genotyping Arrays for Citrus and Its Close Relatives

2024· article· en· W4392285194 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yoko Hiraoka, Sergio Ferrante, Guohong Wu, Claire T. Federici, Mikeal L. Roose

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogenic Bacteria Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsOffice of ScienceNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsGenotypingBiologyGenomeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismSNP genotypingSNPGeneticsMolecular Inversion ProbeConcordanceSNP arrayComputational biologyGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid advancements in technologies provide various tools to analyze fruit crop genomes to better understand genetic diversity and relationships and aid in breeding. Genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping arrays offer highly multiplexed assays at a relatively low cost per data point. We report the development and validation of 1.4M SNP Axiom® Citrus HD Genotyping Array (Citrus 15AX 1 and Citrus 15AX 2) and 58K SNP Axiom® Citrus Genotyping Arrays for Citrus and close relatives. SNPs represented were chosen from a citrus variant discovery panel consisting of 41 diverse whole-genome re-sequenced accessions of Citrus and close relatives, including eight progenitor citrus species. SNPs chosen mainly target putative genic regions of the genome and are accurately called in both Citrus and its closely related genera while providing good coverage of the nuclear and chloroplast genomes. Reproducibility of the arrays was nearly 100%, with a large majority of the SNPs classified as the most stringent class of markers, “PolyHighResolution” (PHR) polymorphisms. Concordance between SNP calls in sequence data and array data average 98%. Phylogenies generated with array data were similar to those with comparable sequence data and little affected by 3 to 5% genotyping error. Both arrays are publicly available.

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 score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicPlant Pathogenic Bacteria StudiesFrench-language works237,207