Histological and inheritance studies of partial resistance in the <i>Brassica napus–Albugo candida</i> host‐pathogen interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditional and doubled haploid (DH) genotypes of oilseed Brassica spp. resistant, partially resistant, moderately susceptible, and susceptible to Albugo candida were compared for phenotypic development of host‐pathogen interaction and histology of host‐pathogen interaction. The partially resistant genotype showed pinhead‐size pustules, mainly on the upper surface of cotyledonary leaves. Relatively less mycelium was observed in the partially resistant genotype compared with the susceptible genotype. In resistant B. napus genotypes, there was neither pustule development nor any mycelial growth. In the moderately susceptible genotype, the pustules were similar to those in the partially resistant genotype in being of pinhead‐size and occasionally coalescing. However, ample mycelial growth in the mesophyll tissue in the moderately susceptible genotype was similar to that in the susceptible control B. rapa cv. ‘Torch’. The susceptible genotype B. rapa cv. ‘Torch’ also showed large coalescing pustules. In the non‐host B. juncea cv. ‘Commercial Brown’, no pustules were formed although some mycelial growth was observed beneath the epidermal cell layer and in the mesophyll cell layer of the cotyledonary leaf tissue. For inheritance studies, two partially resistant B. napus genotypes were crossed with a resistant B. napus genotype. Various generations viz., F1, F1(reciprocal), F 2 , and DHs produced from the crosses were inoculated with a zoospore suspension of race 7v of A. candida. The partially resistant phenotype appeared to be controlled by a single recessive gene designated as wpr with variable expression. The simple inheritance of partial resistance has implications for disease resistance breeding against white rust, as this type of resistance can be easily incorporated into elite breeding lines through conventional and DH breeding methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".