MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973422250 · doi:10.1139/g09-021

A genetic linkage map of<i>Pleurotus pulmonarius</i>based on AFLP markers, and localization of the gene region for the sporeless mutation

2009· article· en· W1973422250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yasuhito Okuda, Shigeyuki Murakami, Teruyuki Matsumoto

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplified fragment length polymorphismBiologyLocus (genetics)GeneticsGenetic linkageGenetic markerGene mappingMolecular markerQuantitative trait locusMating typeGeneGenetic diversityPopulationChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the cultivation of edible mushrooms, including Pleurotus pulmonarius (Fr.) Quel., the enormous number of spores produced by fruiting bodies can adversely affect mushroom growers' health, mushroom cultivation facilities, and the genetic diversity of natural populations. In this study, we constructed a primary genetic linkage map and identified the locus associated with the sporulation-deficient (sporeless) mutation of P. pulmonarius using 150 progeny isolates derived from a cross between sporeless and wild-type isolates. Based on the segregation of 300 AFLP markers, two mating-type factors, and the sporeless trait, a linkage map was generated consisting of 12 linkage groups. The map covered a total genetic distance of 971 cM, with an average marker interval of 5.2 cM. The gene region responsible for the sporeless mutation was located in linkage group II including 40 AFLP markers and the A mating-type factor locus. Of these markers, the nearest marker to the sporeless locus was located 1.4 cM away. Construction of this P. pulmonarius genetic linkage map and identification of markers that are closely linked to the sporeless locus will facilitate marker-assisted selective breeding of a sporeless strain with economically important traits.

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 score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207