Development and characterization of low α-linolenic acid Brassica oleracea lines bearing a novel mutation in a ‘class a’ FATTY ACID DESATURASE 3gene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional canola (Brassica napus L.; AACC, 2n=38) cultivars yield seed oil with a relatively high proportion of α-linolenic acid (ALA; C18:3cis∆9,12,15), which is desirable from a health perspective. Unfortunately, due to the instability of this fatty acid, elevated levels also result in oils that exhibit a short shelf life and problems associated with use at high temperatures. As a result, the development of cultivars bearing reduced amounts of ALA in their seeds is becoming a priority. To date, several low ALA B. napus cultivars (~2-3% ALA of total fatty acids) have been developed and molecular analyses have revealed that the low ALA phenotype of lines tested thus far is a result of mutations within two 'class b' FATTY ACID DESATURASE 3 (FAD3) genes. Since B. napus possesses six FAD3 genes (two 'class a', two 'class b' and two 'class c') and ALA levels of approximately 2-3% remain in these low ALA lines, it is likely that the mutation of additional FAD3 genes could further decrease the content of this fatty acid. RESULTS: In this study, we generated low ALA (≤2%) lines of B. oleracea, which is the C genome progenitor species of B. napus, via ethyl methanesulphonate (EMS) mutagenesis. We identified a novel nonsense mutation within the 'class a' FAD3 gene (BoFAD3-2) in these lines, which would result in the production of an encoded protein lacking 110 amino acids at its C terminus. When expressed in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, this mutant protein exhibited a drastic decline in its Δ-15 desaturase activity compared to the wild-type (wt) protein. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the expression of the mutant BoFAD3-2 gene was significantly reduced in developing seeds of low ALA lines when compared to expression in wt plants. CONCLUSIONS: Given the additive nature of FAD3 mutations on ALA content and the ease with which B. napus can be re-synthesized from its progenitor species, the mutant isolated here has the potential to be used for the future development of B. napus cultivars exhibiting further reductions in ALA content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".