Comparative analysis of genetic background in eight near-isogenic wheat lines with different<i>H</i>genes conferring resistance to Hessian fly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Near-isogenic lines (NILs) are useful for plant genetic and genomic studies. However, the strength of conclusions from such studies depends on the similarity of the NILs' genetic backgrounds. In this study, we investigated the genetic similarity for a set of NILs developed in the 1990s to study gene-for-gene interactions between wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and the Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor (Say)), an important pest of wheat. Each of the eight NILs carries a single H resistance gene and was created by successive backcrossing for two to six generations to susceptible T. aestivum 'Newton'. We generated 256 target region amplification polymorphism (TRAP) markers and used them to calculate genetic similarity, expressed by the Nei and Li (NL) coefficient. Six of the NILs (H3, H5, H6, H9, H11, and H13) had the highly uniform genetic background of Newton, with NL coefficients from 0.97 to 0.99. However, genotypes with H10 or H12 were less similar to Newton, with NL coefficients of 0.86 and 0.93, respectively. Cluster analysis based on NL coefficients and pedigree analysis showed that the genetic similarity between each of the NILs and Newton was affected by both the number of backcrosses and the genetic similarity between Newton and the H gene donors. We thus generated an equation to predict the number of required backcrosses, given varying similarity of donor and recurrent parent. We also investigated whether the genetic residues of the donor parents that remained in the NILs were related to linkage drag. By using a complete set of 'Chinese Spring' nullisomic-tetrasomic lines, one third of the TRAP markers that showed polymorphism between the NILs and Newton were assigned to a specific chromosome. All of the assigned markers were located on chromosomes other than the chromosome carrying the H gene, suggesting that the genetic residues detected in this study were not due to linkage drag. Results will aid in the development and use of near-isogenic lines for studies of the functional genomics of 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".