MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022680262 · doi:10.1139/g01-109

Physical mapping of resistant and susceptible soybean genomes near the soybean cyst nematode resistance gene <i>Rhg</i><i><sub>4</sub></i>

2001· article· en· W2022680262 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kim S. Lewers, Sasanda D Nilmalgoda, April L. Warner, Halina T. Knap, B. F. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnited Soybean Board
KeywordsSoybean cyst nematodeBiologyGeneGeneticsGenomeNematodeGene mappingResistance (ecology)AgronomyChromosomeEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The soybean cyst nematode (SCN), Heterodera glycines Ichinohe, is the foremost pest of soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.). The rhg1 allele on linkage group (LG) G and the Rhg4 allele on LG A2 are important in conditioning resistance. Markers closely linked to the Rhg4 locus were used previously to screen a library of bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones from susceptible 'Williams 82' and identified a single 150-kb BAC, Gm_ISb001_056_G02 (56G2). End-sequenced subclones positioned onto a restriction map provided landmarks for identifying the corresponding region from a BAC library from accession PI 437654 with broad resistance to SCN. Seventy-three PI 437654 BACs were assigned to contigs based upon HindIII restriction fragment profiles. Four contigs represented the PI 437654 counterpart of the 'Williams 82' BAC, with PCR assays connecting these contigs. Some of the markers on the PI 437654 contigs are separated by a greater physical distance than in the 'Williams 82' BAC and some primers amplify bands from BACs in the mid-portion of the connected PI 437654 BAC contigs that are not amplified from the 'Williams 82' BAC. These observations suggest that there is an insertion in the PI 437654 genome relative to the 'Williams 82' genome in the Rhg4 region.

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 score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207