Physiological and Molecular Characterization of Mutation‐Derived Imidazolinone Resistance in Spring Wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While imidazolinone herbicides are an attractive alternative for weed control, spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is susceptible to most of these herbicides. Three mutant alleles conferring resistance to the imidazolinone herbicides were previously identified in spring wheat following seed mutagenesis, but little is known about the physiological and molecular basis of resistance conferred by these alleles. On the basis of acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS; E.C. 4.1.3.18) assays, imazethapyr resistance in genotypes TealIMI 10A (AhasL‐D1), TealIMI 11A (AhasL‐B1), TealIMI 15A, and BW755 (AhasL‐D1) was due to a herbicide resistant form of AHAS. TealIMI 15A, which is homozygous for two resistance alleles, was the most resistant at the enzyme level, suggesting resistance in wheat is additive. Nucleotide sequence analysis of clones derived from susceptible cultivar CDC Teal and resistant lines indicated the presence of three genes coding for the catalytic subunit of AHAS. Using a collection of T. aestivum cv. Chinese Spring aneuploid and deletion lines, ahasL‐D1, ahasL‐B1, and ahasL‐A1 mapped to the long arm of chromosomes 6D, 6B, and 6A, respectively. Comparison of partial AhasL‐D1, and AhasL‐B1 deduced amino acid allele sequences with wild‐type sequences indicated resistance was due to a Ser‐Asn substitution near the carboxyl terminal of resulting AHAS catalytic subunits. This substitution was not present on the single isolated clone of AhasL‐A1 from TealIMI 15A. This is the first report of the molecular characterization of the AHAS gene family from wheat.
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 | 0.000 | 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".