MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976184095 · doi:10.1071/ar08065

Allelic variation for the high- and low-molecular-weight glutenin subunits in wild diploid wheat (Triticum urartu) and its comparison with durum wheats

2008· article· en· W1976184095 on OpenAlexaff
L. Caballero, M.Á. Martín, Juan B. Álvarez

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Agricultural Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundEuropean Commission
KeywordsGluteninBiologyPloidyPolyploidGermplasmAlleleLocus (genetics)Genetic diversityGenetic erosionGene poolGenetic variationGenetic variabilityStorage proteinGeneticsBotanyGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Triticum urartu is a wild diploid wheat identified as donor of the A genome in polyploid wheats. This species could be used as a genetic resource for wheat quality breeding. The HMWGs and B-LMWGs of this species were analysed by SDS-PAGE in 169 accessions from Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the former Soviet Union, and Turkey. Seventeen alleles for the Glu-Au1 locus and 24 for the Glu-Au3 locus were found. The allelic variation was asymmetrically distributed, Turkey being the country where the largest number of alleles was found. Genetic diversity was high, although a great part of this diversity is at risk of erosion given that the distribution of the combinations among the evaluated accessions was not random. Consequently, the loss of these accessions could mean the disappearance of the allelic variants. The alleles found for both loci were different from those detected in cultivated wheats. These results provided new basic knowledge regarding the genetic variability of the seed storage proteins synthesised by the Au genome, as well as their potential to create novel germplasm for quality breeding in wheat programs.

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)0.001
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 score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Agricultural ResearchSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207