MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994088337 · doi:10.1139/g09-042

Chromosomal location of the cadmium uptake gene (<i>Cdu1</i>) in durum wheat

2009· article· en· W1994088337 on OpenAlexaffvenue
R. E. Knox, Curtis Pozniak, F. R. Clarke, J. M. Clarke, Massoud Houshmand, Asheesh K. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyQuantitative trait locusDoubled haploidyLocus (genetics)CadmiumGenePloidyGeneticsPopulationTriticum turgidumMicrosatelliteChromosomeWheat grainInbred strainAlleleAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Levels of the heavy metal cadmium (Cd) in food products are a food safety concern. Grain Cd is higher in durum (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) than in common wheat, so reduction of Cd in durum grain is a priority of breeding programs. Previous research demonstrated that a single dominant gene, Cdu1, confers the low grain Cd phenotype, but the map location of the gene is not known. A doubled haploid population segregating for Cd concentration, developed from the cross of W9262-260D3 (a Kyle*2/Biodur inbred selection with low Cd uptake) and Kofa (high Cd uptake) and mapped with microsatellite markers, was used to locate Cdu1. Grain Cd concentration was determined by standard laboratory methods on field grain samples in 2000 and 2001. The Cd concentration segregated bimodally, allowing Cdu1 to be mapped qualitatively as well as quantitatively with quantitative trait locus analysis. The Cdu1 gene mapped to the long arm of chromosome 5B.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations86
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207