MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016849978 · doi:10.1094/phyto-06-11-0181

Novel Septoria Speckled Leaf Blotch Resistance Loci in a Barley Doubled-Haploid Population

2012· article· en· W2016849978 on OpenAlexaff
Doris Luckert, Hala Toubia-Rahme, Brian J. Steffenson, Thin‐Meiw Choo, Stephen J. Molnar

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytopathology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySeptoriaQuantitative trait locusDoubled haploidyGeneticsLocus (genetics)PopulationAlleleGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genetics of resistance to Septoria speckled leaf blotch (SSLB), caused by Septoria passerinii, was studied in the Leger × CIho9831 barley doubled-haploid population. The 140 lines in the population segregated as 102 resistant and 38 susceptible, approximating a 3:1 ratio. A recombination map was developed using diversity arrays technology and other molecular markers. Quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis demonstrated that resistance is primarily conferred either by having the CIho9831 allele at a QTL on 6HS or by having the CIho9831 allele at both of two QTLs on 3H and 2HL. In addition, ≈1/16 of the lines were resistant for unidentified reasons. This model predicts a resistant/susceptible ratio of 11:5, which fits the phenotypic observations. Minor QTLs were detected on 2HS and 1H. DNA sequences of linked markers suggest that the 6HS, 3H, and 2HS QTLs are part of resistance gene clusters and that the 6HS and 3H QTLs share homology. The 6HS QTL is identical to or closely linked to the SSLB resistance locus Rsp4 and the 1H QTL to the Rsp2 or Rsp3 locus. The 3H and 2HS QTLs are unique and offer new opportunities for pyramiding resistance genes through marker-assisted breeding for resistance to S. passerinii.

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 score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytopathologySame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207