MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1905616945 · doi:10.4141/cjps-2014-146

Genetic variation and heritability of rutin and glutathione concentrations in asparagus spears

2014· article· en· W1905616945 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jenna M. Drinkwater, Rong Tsao, Ronghua Liu, David J. Wolyn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhytochemical Studies and Bioactivities
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsparagusRutinHeritabilityGermplasmBiologyGenetic variationGlutathioneGenetic variabilityOfficinalisBotanyHorticultureGenotypeAntioxidantBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drinkwater, J. M., Tsao, R., Liu, R. and Wolyn, D. J. 2014. Genetic variation and heritability of rutin and glutathione concentrations in asparagus spears. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1355–1362. Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) spears contain numerous phytochemicals, including rutin (a flavonoid) and glutathione (a biothiol), that are beneficial to human health due to antioxidant or other activities. To assess the potential to increase phytochemical content through breeding, genetic variability was surveyed in diverse germplasm adapted to southern Ontario. Selected female and supermale genotypes were also hybridized in a partial diallel to estimate heritability and identify parents with good combining ability. Genetic variation for rutin (3.30 to 8.14 mg g −1 dry weight) was observed, while glutathione concentrations (5.37 to 7.86 µmol g −1 dry weight) did not differ significantly among tested genotypes. Combining ability effects were significant for rutin concentration and heritability was also moderate. From these results, breeding to improve the concentration of rutin, rather than that of glutathione, is most achievable in the germplasm tested.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPhytochemical Studies and BioactivitiesFrench-language works237,207