Evaluation of the cost of restoration of male fertility in<i>Brassica napus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gynodioecy frequently results from the interplay of mitochondrial cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) and nuclear fertility-restoration genes. Models suggest that maintaining cytonuclear gynodioecy requires that restorer genes incur a cost to fitness because otherwise they would increase toward fixation. Direct tests of costs of restorer alleles require knowledge of the underlying genetics of sex determination. We use a well characterized CMS system in Brassica napus L. to measure aspects of fitness in four lineages that vary in whether they carry the pol CMS gene or male-fertile cytoplasm (cam), and whether they carry the Rfp restorer of pol or Rfn restorer of the nap CMS gene. As expected, plants with pol CMS and only the Rfn restorer experienced reduced flower size, stamen length, and pollen counts. Plants with pol and the Rfp restorer showed incomplete restoration with shorter stamens than both lines with cam cytoplasm and reduced pollen counts compared with plants with cam cytoplasm and the Rfp restorer. Among plants with cam cytoplasm, pollen counts were higher for those with the Rfp than Rfn restorer, indicating a greater cost of restoration associated with Rfn. These results demonstrate that costs of restoration differ for the Rfn and Rfp alleles in B. napus.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".