MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic analysis of seedling resistance to Stagonospora nodorum blotch in selected tetraploid and hexaploid wheat genotypes

2009· article· en· W1996260094 on OpenAlexafffund
P. K. Singh, Jie Feng, Mohamed Mergoum, Curt A. McCartney, G. R. Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsBiologyGenotypePlant disease resistanceInoculationPoaceaeGeneGene poolSeedlingFungi imperfectiPloidyBotanyGeneticsHorticultureGenetic diversityPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stagonospora nodorum blotch (SNB), caused by Phaeosphaeria nodorum , is a major component of the leaf‐spotting disease complex of wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) in the northern Great Plains of North America. This study was conducted, under controlled environmental conditions, to determine the inheritance of resistance to SNB in a diverse set of hexaploid and tetraploid wheat genotypes and to decipher the genic/allelic relationship among the resistance gene(s). Plants were inoculated at the two to three‐leaf stages with a spore suspension of P. nodorum isolate Kelvington‐SK and disease reaction was assessed 8 days after inoculation based on a lesion‐type scale. Tests of the F 1 and F 2 generations and of F 2 : 3 or F 2 : 5 families indicated that a single recessive gene controlled resistance to SNB in both hexaploid and tetraploid resistance sources. Lack of segregation in intra‐specific and inter‐specific crosses between the hexaploid and the tetraploid resistant genotypes, indicated that these genetically diverse sources of resistance possess the same gene for resistance to SNB. Results of this study suggest that the wheat‐ P. nodorum interaction may follow the toxin model of the gene‐for‐gene hypothesis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207