MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409315271 · doi:10.1139/gen-2024-0105

Genetic insights: integrating DNA barcoding with taxonomy in the study of <i>Baccaurea</i> (Phyllanthaceae)

2025· article· en· W4409315271 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lee Hong Tnah, Nuri Rasli Ahmad-Farhan, A Nur-Nabilah, Pei Sin Soo, Zakaria Hazwani-Humaira', Kevin Kit Siong Ng, Chai Ting Lee, Chin Hong Ng, Soon Leong Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA barcodingBiologyPhylogenetic treeMonophylyTaxonomy (biology)Evolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsBotanyCladeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional taxonomic revisions based on macromorphological and leaf anatomical traits may have limitations in accurately distinguishing certain species within the genus. To improve taxonomic clarity, this study applied DNA barcoding to enhance the understanding of the taxonomy and phylogeny of Baccaurea Lour., a plant genus widely utilized for food, medicine, and building materials. DNA barcode regions, including rbcL, ITS2, and trnH- psbA, were used to analyze 64 samples representing 19 Baccaurea species. Using similarity Basic Local Alignment Search Tool and phylogenetic tree inference, we determined the discriminatory efficiencies of rbcL, ITS2, trnH -psbA, and their combinations rbcL + ITS2 and rbcL + ITS2 + trnH- psbA as 21.1%, 89.5%, 87.5%, 89.5%, and 89.5%, respectively. The Neighbor-Joining tree revealed well-defined, monophyletic species clusters that largely align with phylogenetic positions based on macromorphological features. Notably, our results indicate that Baccaurea parviflora and the synonymized Baccaurea scortechinii are distinct species, recommending the re-establishment of B. scortechinii as a separate species. DNA barcoding is useful in delineating species boundaries, facilitating routine specimen identification, and flagging atypical samples for detailed examination.

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 score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207