MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997056277 · doi:10.1139/g11-066

Heterosis for carotenoid concentration and profile in maize hybrids

2011· article· en· W1997056277 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Andrew Burt, Christopher M. Grainger, Barry J. Shelp, Elizabeth A. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyHybridHeterosisCarotenoidZea maysGeneticsBiotechnologyBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Production of high-lutein maize grain is of particular interest as a value-added feed source to produce high-lutein eggs. In this paper, it is demonstrated that heterosis for total carotenoid concentration and for the ratio of lutein to zeaxanthin (L:Z ratio), or profile type, exists infrequently in yellow dent crosses. However, yellow dent inbred maize lines A619 and CG102, both possessing high-lutein profiles, produce F1 seed with a classic overdominant expression of lutein levels (i.e., 49 µg/g dry weight (DW) above the high-parent value). Reciprocal crosses of A619 and CG102 with one another and with two high-zeaxanthin (i.e., low lutein), high-carotenoid lines both suggest that the A619 and CG102 high-lutein phenotypes are achieved by different and complementary genotypes. The contribution of CG102 to the heterotic response was examined using a QTL-based approach that involved phenotyping the mapping population in a testcross to A619. Significant QTL were found at loci known to be involved in the carotenoid pathway but also at loci proximate to, but separate from, known carotenoid pathway steps. Exploiting an overdominant heterotic response for lutein and total carotenoids should be given strong consideration as a viable method of producing high-carotenoid hybrid maize lines.

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 score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.136 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207