MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012760853 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.9200

A Sequence Specific PCR Marker for Distinguishing Rice Lines on the Basis of Wild Abortive Cytoplasm from Their Cognate Maintainer Lines

2004· article· en· W2012760853 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Yashitola, R. M. Sundaram, Sunil Biradar, T. Thirumurugan, M. R. Vishnupriya, R. Rajeshwari, B. C. Viraktamath, N. P. Sarma, Ramesh V. Sonti

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Millennium Scholarship Foundation
KeywordsSoftware maintainerBiologyOryza sativaPolymerase chain reactionGeneticsDNAgenomic DNAHybridMolecular biologyGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensuring the genetic purity of parental lines and hybrids is a prerequisite to realize their full potential. The cytoplasmic male sterile (CMS) lines that are utilized for developing the popular “three‐line” hybrids, often get contaminated with their isonuclear maintainer lines during CMS line multiplication. Use of such CMS lines in hybrid seed production results in the production of genetically impure hybrid seed. We report the identification of a DNA sequence that is homologous to rice mitochondrial DNA but unique to the Wild Abortive (WA) cytoplasmic male sterile lines of rice ( Oryza sativa L.). In a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using total genomic DNA as a template, oligonucleotide primers based on this unique DNA sequence could amplify a fragment from CMS lines of rice and their hybrids but not from their cognate maintainer lines. In tests on mixed samples of plants containing both CMS and Maintainer lines, this PCR assay was used to correctly predict the genotypes of these plants indicating that it can be used to detect the mixture of maintainer lines in the seed stocks of the CMS line.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207