MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6901757548 · doi:10.60692/p3f34-zhr67

Chloroplast genome characteristics and phylogenetic analysis of the medicinal plant Blumea balsamifera (L.) DC

2022· article· en· W6901757548 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomePhylogenetic treeChloroplastWhole genome sequencingInverted repeatChloroplast DNAPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Blumea balsamifera (L.) DC., a medicinal plant with high economic value in the Asteraceae family, is widely distributed in China and Southeast Asia. However, studies on the population structure or phylogenetic relationships with other related species are rare owing to the lack of genome information. In this study, through high-throughput sequencing, we found that the chloroplast genome of B. balsamifera was 151,170 bp in length, with a pair of inverted repeat regions (IRa and IRb) comprising 24,982 bp, a large single-copy (LSC) region comprising 82,740 bp, and a small single-copy (SSC) region comprising 18,466 bp. A total of 130 genes were identified in the chloroplast genome of B. balsamifera, including 85 protein-coding, 37 transfer RNA, and 8 ribosomal RNA genes; furthermore, sequence analysis identified 53 simple sequence repeats. Whole chloroplast genome comparison indicated that the inverted regions (IR) were more conserved than large single-copy and SSC regions. Phylogenetic analysis showed that B. balsamifera is closely related to Pluchea indica. Conclusively, the chloroplast genome of B. balsamifera was helpful for species identification and analysis of the genetic diversity and evolution in the genus Blumea and family Asteraceae.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207