MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021429581 · doi:10.3390/plants1010016

Genetic Variation in Morphology, Seed Quality and Self-(in)Compatibility among the Inbred Lines Developed from a Population Variety in Outcrossing Yellow Mustard (Sinapis alba)

2012· article· en· W2021429581 on OpenAlexafffund
Bifang Cheng, David J. Williams, Yan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsInbreeding depressionBiologyInbred strainInbreedingOutcrossingSelfingSinapisPopulationHeterosisGenetic variationBotanyHorticultureGeneticsBrassicaPollenHybrid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yellow mustard (Sinapis alba L.) has been grown as an important source of condiment for the spice trade in the world. It is an obligate outcrossing species due to its sporophytic self-incompatibility (SI). To utilize heterosis for yield potential, we have attempted to develop elite component inbred lines for producing high-yielding synthetic varieties for this crop. The open-pollinated variety Andante was used as the initial population. To circumvent the SI barrier, bud-pollination for selfing was performed on the selected initial (S0) plants. Various types of inbreeding depression were observed in the S1 generation. Elite inbred lines tolerant to inbreeding were produced by purging the deleterious alleles in each inbred generation. Self-compatible (SC) lines were developed for the first time in this species. There were three types of erucic variants (high: 49.9%, median: 23.9% and low: 1.4%), three types of linolenic variants (high: 18.5%, median: 13.8% and low: 3.8%) and two types of mucliage variants (high: 164.0 cS*mL/g and low: 12.0 cS*mL/g) among the developed inbred lines. These variants are being used to investigate the genetic and molecular mechanism underpinning the phenotypic variation of the seed oil profile and SI/SC traits in yellow mustard.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207