MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404665332 · doi:10.1080/21580103.2024.2429600

Cross-amplification of microsatellite markers on the endangered tree species <i>Castanopsis argentea</i> from other <i>Castanopsis</i> species: a valuable tool for genetic diversity analysis

2024· article· en· W4404665332 on OpenAlexaff
Bangun Baramantya, Sapto Indrioko, Eny Faridah, AYPBC Widyatmoko

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Science and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsParks Canada
FundersUniversitas Gadjah MadaMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of Environment and Forests
KeywordsEndangered speciesCastanopsisBiologyGenetic diversityMicrosatelliteEcologyEvolutionary biologyFagaceaeGeneticsPopulationAlleleDemographyHabitatGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Castanopsis argentea is an endangered tree naturally distributed in Java and Sumatera Island and considered a keystone species in the submontane forest ecosystem. A laboratory study was conducted to test the cross-amplification potential of seven pairs of Castanopsis cuspidata var. sieboldii microsatellite markers to be used for Castanopsis argentea. The rate of cross-amplification success, average number of alleles per locus (NA), observed heterozygosity (HO), expected heterozygosity (HE), and fixation index (FIS) were determined, and cross-amplification potential was investigated. The rate of amplification success was 85.71% (6 out of 7 markers were successful amplified), NA was 7.67, HO ranged from 0.467 to 0.923, HE ranged from 0.441 to 0.745, and the fixation index (FIS) ranged from −0.413 to 0.278. Results indicate the high transferability of C. cuspidata var. sieboldii microsatellite markers to C. argentea. Six markers were suitable for genetic diversity and population genetic studies on C. argentea.

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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Science and TechnologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207