Development of self‐incompatible <i>Brassica napus:</i> (III) <i>B. napus</i> genotype effects on S‐allele expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Use of self‐incompatibility (SI) as a pollination control method for Brassica napus hybrid production requires the development of a sufficient number of S‐alleles that are expressed consistently in a range of B. napus lines. Self‐incompatibility (SI) alleles have been transferred from Brassica oleracea and Brassica rapa into B. napus var. oleifera. An understanding of expression of these alleles in B. napus is essential for their commercial use. Four SI B. napus doubled haploids containing the B. oleracea S‐alleles S2, S5, S13 and S24 were crossed to three B. napus cultivars to measure the B. napus genetic background effect on S‐allele expression. A line x tester analysis indicated that the largest source of variation in the expression rate of SI was the S‐allele itself. The B. napus genotypes tested contained modifier gene(s), some that enhanced SI expression and others that inhibited SI expression. The B. napus Canadian cultivar ‘Westar’ generally had a negative effect on SI expression while the European cultivar ‘Topas’ had a positive effect on the B. oleracea S‐allele expression. The B. oleracea S‐allele S24 was very similar in expression to the B. rapa allele W1. The application of these results for the use of B. oleracea S‐alleles for hybrid production in B. napus is discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".