Gluten index compared with SDS-sedimentation volume for early generation selection for gluten strength in durum wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gluten strength is an important end-use quality factor in durum wheat [Triticum turgidum L. ssp. durum (Desf.) Husn.], affecting pasta manufacture and cooking quality. The objective of this research was to determine the inheritance and heritability of gluten index in comparison with the widely used SDS-sedimentation (sodium dodecyl sulphate) technique for selection for gluten strength. Seven durum populations were grown in replicated, multi-location, multi-year field trials in Saskatchewan, Canada, during the period 1995 to 2002. Gluten index and SDS-sedimentation volume were determined on all plots after harvest. Both traits were affected by genotype, and to a lesser extent by year or location. Genotype environmental interactions were generally minor. The majority of genotypes in each population had similar relative ranking for gluten index and SDS-sedimentation volume in each environment. Both traits were highly heritable, ranging from 0.80 to 0.97, and both were complexly inherited with estimates of effective factors ranging from 3 to 21. Gluten index and SDS-sedimentation volume were highly correlated, indicating that they are measuring similar aspects of gluten strength. SDS-sedimentation volume was positively associated with protein concentration (r 2 = 0.52), but gluten index was not. Therefore, gluten index would be more desirable than SDS-sedimentation volume for use in selection where there are within-trial protein concentration trends.Key words: Gluten strength, SDS-sedimentation, gluten index, heritability, inheritance
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".