The Relationship between Structurally Different Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids and Western Flower Thrips Resistance in F2 Hybrids of Jacobaea vulgaris and Jacobaea aquatica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segregating plant hybrids often have more ecological and molecular variability compared to parental species, and are therefore useful for studying relationships between different traits, and the adaptive significance of trait variation. Hybrid systems have been used to study the relationship between the expression of plant defense compounds and herbivore susceptibility. We conducted a western flower thrips (WFT) bioassay using a hybrid family and investigated the relationship between WFT resistance and pyrrolizidine alkaloid (PA) variation. The hybrid family consisted of two parental (Jacobaea vulgaris and Jacobaea aquatica) genotypes, two F(1) genotypes, and 94 F(2) hybrid lines. The J. aquatica genotype was more susceptible to thrips attack than the J. vulgaris genotype, the two F(1) hybrids were as susceptible as J. aquatica, and susceptibility to WFT differed among F(2) hybrid lines: 69 F(2) lines were equally susceptible compared to J. aquatica, 10 F(2) lines were more susceptible than J. aquatica and 15 F(2) lines were as resistant as J. vulgaris or were intermediate to the two parental genotypes. Among 37 individual PAs that were derived from four structural groups (senecionine-, jacobine-, erucifoline- and otosenine-like PAs), the N-oxides of jacobine, jaconine, and jacoline were negatively correlated with feeding damage caused by WFT, and the tertiary amines of jacobine, jaconine, jacoline, and other PAs did not relate to feeding damage. Total PA concentration was negatively correlated with feeding damage. Among the four PA groups, only the total concentration of the jacobine-like PAs was negatively correlated with feeding damage. Multiple regression tests suggested that jacobine-like PAs play a greater role in WFT resistance than PAs from other structural groups. We found no evidence for synergistic effects of different PAs on WFT resistance. The relationship between PA variation and WFT feeding damage in the Jacobaea hybrids suggests a role for PAs in resistance to generalist insects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".