MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921854717 · doi:10.1139/g09-020

QTL mapping of protein content and seed characteristics under water-stress conditions in sunflower

2009· article· en· W1921854717 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amin Ebrahimi, Pierre Maury, Monique Berger, Anne Calmon, Philippe Grieu, A. Sarrafi

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSunflower and Safflower Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHelianthus annuusQuantitative trait locusSunflowerInbred strainAgronomyWater contentHorticultureGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to identify genomic regions controlling seed protein content, kernel and hull weights, and seed density in water-stress conditions in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). The experiments consisted of a split-plot design (water treatment and recombinant inbred lines) with three blocks in two environments (greenhouse and field). High significant variation was observed between genotypes for all traits as well as for water treatment x genotype interaction. Several specific and nonspecific QTLs were detected for all traits under well-watered and water-stress conditions. Two SSR markers, ORS671_2 and HA2714, linked to protein content were identified that have no interaction with water treatments in greenhouse conditions. We also detected the E35M60_4 marker associated with kernel weight that had no interaction with water treatments. A specific QTL for protein content was detected with important phenotypic variance (17%) under water-stress conditions. Overlapping QTLs for protein content and seed density were identified in linkage group 15. This region probably has a peliotropic effect on protein content and seed density. QTLs for protein content colocated with grain weight traits were also identified.

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 score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicSunflower and Safflower CultivationFrench-language works237,207