MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045860144 · doi:10.1139/g07-061

Molecular markers linked to the<i>Rf<sub>2</sub></i>fertility restorer gene in cotton

2007· article· en· W2045860144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fei Wang, J. M. Stewart, Jinfa Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicResearch in Cotton Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAmplified fragment length polymorphismGeneticsPentatricopeptide repeatGenetic markerCytoplasmic male sterilityRAPDGeneGenetic linkagePopulationBackcrossingSterilityMolecular markerBulked segregant analysisGene mappingChromosomeIntronGenetic diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) is a maternally inherited trait in which plants do not produce viable pollen. Fertility in plants with CMS can be recovered by nuclear restorer genes. Most restorer genes cloned so far are members of the pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) protein family. The objective of our study was to use the CMS-D8 and restoration (Rf2) system of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to develop more DNA markers for the Rf2 gene. In a backcross population with 112 plants, segregation of male fertility was 1 fertile : 1 sterile. Three new RAPD markers were identified for Rf2, one of which was converted to a CAPS marker. In addition, 2 AFLP markers and 1 SSR marker were identified to be linked to the fertility restorer gene (Rf2). PPR motif primers were designed based on the conserved PPR motifs and used in combination with AFLP primers to test the mapping population, and 1 PPR-AFLP marker was identified. A linkage map with 9 flanking markers including 1 from a previous study was constructed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations39
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicResearch in Cotton CultivationFrench-language works237,207