MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985970300 · doi:10.1139/g08-077

Quantitative trait loci associated with lettuce seed germination under different temperature and light environments

2008· article· en· W1985970300 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eiji Hayashi, Natsuyo Aoyama, David W. Still

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationLactucaBiologyQuantitative trait locusPopulationHorticultureBotanyAgronomyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temperature and light are primary environmental cues affecting seed germination. To elucidate the genetic architecture underlying lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) seed germination under different environmental conditions, an F8 recombinant inbred line population consisting of 131 families was phenotyped for final germination and germination rate. Seeds were imbibed in water at 20 degrees C under continuous red light (20-Rc), 20 degrees C continuous dark (20-Dc), 31.5 degrees C continuous red light (31.5-Rc), 31.5 degrees C continuous dark (31.5-Dc), or 20 degrees C far-red light for 24 h followed by continuous dark (20-FRc-Dc). Thirty-eight quantitative trait loci (QTL) were identified from two seed maturation environments: 10 for final germination and 28 for germination rate. The amount of variation attributed to an individual QTL ranged from 9.3% to 17.2% and from 5.6% to 26.2% for final germination and germination rate, respectively. Path analysis indicated that factors affecting germination under 31.5-Rc or 31.5-Dc are largely the same, and these appear to differ from those employed under 20-FRc-Dc. QTL and path analysis support the notion of common and unique factors for germination under diverse temperature and light regimes. A highly significant effect of the seed maturation environment on subsequent germination capacity under environmental stress was observed.

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 score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207