MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of self‐incompatible <i>Brassica napus:</i> (III) <i>B. napus</i> genotype effects on S‐allele expression

2003· article· en· W1992456613 on OpenAlexaffabout
V. L. Ripley, W. D. Beversdorf

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrassica oleraceaBrassicaBiologyAlleleCultivarBrassica rapaGenotypeGeneticsGenePloidyGene expressionBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207