MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056654721 · doi:10.1139/g03-026

Genetic analysis and genome mapping in<i>Raphanus</i>

2003· article· en· W2056654721 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kirstin E. Bett, Derek J. Lydiate

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsRaphanusBiologyGeneticsHybridGenetic markerPopulationGene mappingBrassicaGenetic linkageGenomeChromosomeGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first genetic map of the Raphanus genome was developed based on meiosis in a hybrid between Raphanus sativus (cultivated radish) and Raphanus raphanistrum (wild radish). This hybrid was used to produce a BC1 population of 54 individuals and an F2 population of 85 individuals. A total of 236 marker loci were assayed in these populations using a set of 144 informative Brassica RFLP probes previously used for genetic mapping in other crucifer species. The genetic maps derived from the BC1 and F2 populations were perfectly collinear and were integrated to produce a robust Raphanus map. Cytological observations demonstrated strict bivalent pairing in the R. sativus x R. raphanistrum hybrids. Productive pairing along the length of each chromosome was confirmed by the identification of nine extensive linkage groups and the lack of clustering of marker loci. Indeed, the distributions of both marker loci and crossovers was more random than those reported for other crop species. The genetic markers and the reference map of Raphanus will be of considerable value for future trait mapping and marker-assisted breeding in this crop, as well as in the intergenomic transfer of Raphanus genes into Brassica crops. The future benefits of comparative mapping with Arabidopsis and Brassica species are also discussed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207