MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048596389 · doi:10.1139/g03-028

Homoeologous loci control the accumulation of seed glucosinolates in oilseed rape (<i>Brassica napus</i>)

2003· article· en· W2048596389 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phil Howell, Andrew Sharpe, Derek J. Lydiate

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsGlucosinolateBiologyBrassicaBackcrossingQuantitative trait locusGeneticsGenetic linkagePopulationAlleleRapeseedGenetic variationGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genetic control of seed glucosinolate content in oilseed rape was investigated using two intervarietal backcross populations. Four QTLs segregating in the population derived from a Brassica napus L. 'Victor' x Brassica napus L. 'Tapidor' cross, together accounting for 76% of the phenotypic variation, were mapped. Three of these loci also appeared to control the accumulation of seed glucosinolates in a Brassica napus L. 'Bienvenu' x 'Tapidor' cross, and accounted for 86% of the phenotypic variation. The three QTLs common to both populations mapped to homoeologous regions of the B. napus genome, suggesting that seed glucosinolate accumulation is controlled by duplicate genes. It was possible to extend the comparative analysis of QTLs controlling seed glucosinolate accumulation by aligning the published genetic maps generated by several research groups. This comparative mapping demonstrated that high-glucosinolate varieties often carry low-glucosinolate alleles at one or more of the loci controlling seed glucosinolate accumulation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations103
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207