MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microspore mutagenesis of <i>Brassica</i> species for fatty acid modifications: a preliminary evaluation

2008· article· en· W1985668392 on OpenAlexaff
A. M. R. Ferrie, David C. Taylor, S. L. MacKenzie, G. Rakow, J. P. Raney, W. A. Keller

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaPlant Biotechnology Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrassicaMicrosporeBrassica rapaDoubled haploidyBiologyPloidyOleic acidFatty acidErucic acidLinolenic acidBotanyLinoleic acidBiochemistryStamenGenePollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A microspore mutagenesis protocol was developed for Brassica rapa , Brassica napus and Brassica juncea for the production of double haploid lines with novel fatty acid profiles in the seed oil. Freshly isolated Brassica microspores were first cultured with ethyl methane sulphonate (EMS) for 1.5 h. The EMS was removed and the microspores were then cultured according to the standard Brassica microspore culture protocol. This protocol was used to generate over 80 000 Brassica haploid/double haploid plants. Field evaluation of B. napus and B. juncea double haploids was conducted between 2000 and 2003. Fatty acid analysis of the B. napus double haploid lines showed that saturated fatty acid proportions ranged from 5.0% to 7.7%. For B. juncea , saturate proportions ranged from 5.4% to 9.5%. Of the 7000 B. rapa lines that were analysed, 197 lines had elevated oleic acid (>55%), 69 lines had reduced α‐linolenic acid (<8%) and 157 lines had low saturated fatty acid proportions (<5%), when compared with the parental lines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207