MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009056180 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2011.08.0405

Genetic Structure in a Core Subset of Cultivated Barley Germplasm

2012· article· en· W2009056180 on OpenAlexaff
Yong‐Bi Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermplasmBiologyDomesticationHordeum vulgareAgronomyGeneticsPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Cultivated barley ( Hordeum vulgare L. subsp. vulgare ) is one of the economically most important cereals with a large number of germplasm accessions conserved worldwide. A core subset of 571barley accessions representing 94 countries was developed, genotyped using 30 informative simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers, and analyzed with several common approaches. The distance‐based analysis of the 230 SSR allele profile revealed a major division of the barley accessions that explained 6 to 8% SSR variation. The model‐based Bayesian analyses revealed six optimal clusters that captured 17.5% SSR variation. The clusters varied in size from 34 to 160, consisted of accessions from many countries and regions, and were well represented by accessions with various important agronomic traits such as kernel row number and growth habit. Such germplasm partitions were further supported from principal component and neighbor‐joining analyses. A mini core subset of 219 accessions from 94 countries was thus developed for future structural inferences. Interestingly, the revealed genetic structure is consistent with the known barley domestication history. Therefore, the inferred optimal clusters may provide the best possible structural description of the current global cultivated barley gene pool and also are useful for future barley research in association mapping, adaptation, and domestication.

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 score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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