MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999727414 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2010.02.0065

Genetic Markers and Leaf Rust Resistance of the Wheat Gene <i>Lr32</i>

2010· article· en· W1999727414 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. B. Thomas, Sasanda D Nilmalgoda, Colin W. Hiebert, Brent McCallum, Gavin Humphreys, R. M. DePauw

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersSolar Energy Technologies Office
KeywordsBiologyAegilops tauschiiRust (programming language)Common wheatBackcrossingPloidyChromosomeDoubled haploidyPlant disease resistanceWheat leaf rustGeneticsGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaf rust (caused by Puccinia triticina Eriks.) is a worldwide and yield‐limiting disease of common wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.). The gene Lr32 , which confers seedling resistance to leaf rust, was previously transferred from Aegilops tauschii Coss. (RL5497‐1) to chromosome 3DS of common wheat. Without exception, Lr32 conferred resistance to 616 diverse isolates of leaf rust sampled from Canadian wheat fields over the past decade (2000 to 2009). Marker alleles specific to chromosome 3DS of RL5497 were found in Lr32 backcross lines of both Katepwa (BW196R) and Thatcher (RL6086). These introgressions from A. tauschii had no adverse effects on either agronomic performance or end use quality. A map based on 338 doubled haploid lines (DHL) from the cross of BW196R × Thatcher showed that Lr32 was slightly distal (0.6 cM) to two simple sequence repeat (SSR) loci wmc43 and barc135, which cosegregated on chromosome 3DS. A survey of the fragments amplified in wheats of diverse origin showed that both wmc43 and barc135 were cross‐applicable as markers for stacking Lr32 with other broadly effective leaf rust resistance genes.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207