<i>Tournefortii</i> male sterility system in <i>Brassica napus.</i> Identification, expression and genetic characterization of male fertility restorers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A germplasm collection of 152 diverse rapeseed accessions from Canada, China, France, India, Poland and South Korea was assayed for identifying new fertility restorers and sterility maintainers for a Tournefortii (tour) cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) system in rape‐seed. Only 16 (10.5%) genotypes showed complete fertility restoration following hybridization with tour CMS line NE 409A. Notable among these were GSL 8851, GSL 8953, Mokpo # 9, Mali, Buk‐wuk‐13, Kuju‐27 and Mokpo # 84. As many as 78 (51.3%) genotypes were perfect maintainers of sterility, the remaining 58 (38.2%) genotypes were classified as partial maintainers. To study the inheritance of fertility restoration, 20 CMS (tour) rapeseed lines were crossed with the four best fertility restorers, namely GSL 8851, GSL 8953, Kuju‐27 and Mokpo # 9, to obtain F2 and test cross populations. Segregation data indicated that fertility restoration for tour CMS was governed by two genes, of which, one is stronger than the other (χ212:3:1). Differences in gene interactions were also observed (χ29:3:4) which could be explained on the basis of influence of female parent genotypes/or modified expression of the restorer gene(s) in different genetic backgrounds. Tests of allelism indicated that the restorer genes present in the four restorers evaluated were allelic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".