MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980142238 · doi:10.1139/g01-082

Multiple flowering time QTLs within several<i>Brassica</i>species could be the result of duplicated copies of one ancestral gene

2001· article· en· W1980142238 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tomas Axelsson, Oksana Shavorskaya, Ulf Lagercrantz

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBrassica rapaQuantitative trait locusGeneticsPloidyBrassica oleraceaGenomeLocus (genetics)BrassicaGeneChromosomeDoubled haploidyGene mappingBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis was used to study the evolution of genes controlling the timing of flowering in four Brassica genomes that are all extensively replicated. Comparative mapping showed that a chromosomal region from the top of Arabidopsis thaliana chromosome 5 corresponded to three homoeologous copies in each of the diploid species Brassica nigra, B. oleracea, and B. rapa and six copies in the amphidiploid B. juncea. QTLs were detected in two of the three replicated segments in each diploid genome and in three of the six replicated segments in B. juncea. These results indicate that, for the studied trait, multiple QTLs resulting from genome duplication is the rule rather than the exception. Brassica homologues to two candidate genes (CO and FLC) identified from the corresponding A. thaliana region were mapped. CO homologues mapped close to the QTL peaks in eight of nine QTLs, while FLC homologues mapped farther away in those cases where the mapping resolution allowed a comparison. Thus, our data are consistent with the hypothesis that all the major QTLs we detected in the different species of Brassica could be the result of duplicated copies of the same ancestral gene, possibly the ancestor of CO.

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 score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations86
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207