MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990305543 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2008.02.0113

Effects of Linkage and Epistasis on Intergeneration Correlations in Self‐Pollinated Species

2008· article· en· W1990305543 on OpenAlexafffund
Rong‐Cai Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEpistasisBiologySelfingGenetic linkageGeneticsLinkage (software)AlleleEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In breeding for self‐pollinated crop cultivars, early generation testing and selection (EGT) is desirable because it allows for more resources to test superior lines and helps avoid the loss of desirable alleles that would occur if EGT is delayed. However, high intergeneration correlations (IGCs) are required for effective EGT. This study is conducted to determine the effects of linkage and epistasis on IGCs. The covariance between genetic means of lines at early and late selfing generations with both linkage and epistasis is derived. Intergeneration correlations are calculated for different levels of coupling and repulsion linkages and for 10 nonepistatic and epistatic models. Intergeneration correlations are moderate to high in the presence of only additive and dominance effects at unlinked and nonepistatic loci but can be very low (<0.2) in tight repulsion linkages or some allelic and nonallelic effects. Epistasis may mimic or counteract the effects of linkage on changes in IGCs. Thus linkage or epistasis can be an important cause of low IGCs and such genetic causes cannot be changed through testing of more environments. This study points out the need to consider both genetic and nongenetic causes of low IGCs when evaluating the efficiency of EGT in self‐pollinated species.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207