MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056832116 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039705

The Effects of Seed Size on Hybrids Formed between Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus) and Wild Brown Mustard (B. juncea)

2012· article· en· W2056832116 on OpenAlexaff
Yongbo Liu, Zhi‐Xi Tang, Henri Darmency, C. Neal Stewart, Di Kun, Wei Wei, Keping Ma

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBrassicaBiologyHybridAgronomyGenetically modified cropsTransgeneMustard PlantHorticultureGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Seed size has significant implications in ecology, because of its effects on plant fitness. The hybrid seeds that result from crosses between crops and their wild relatives are often small, and the consequences of this have been poorly investigated. Here we report on plant performance of hybrid and its parental transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and wild B. juncea, all grown from seeds sorted into three seed-size categories. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Three seed-size categories were sorted by seed diameter for transgenic B. napus, wild B. juncea and their transgenic and non-transgenic hybrids. The seeds were sown in a field at various plant densities. Globally, small-seeded plants had delayed flowering, lower biomass, fewer flowers and seeds, and a lower thousand-seed weight. The seed-size effect varied among plant types but was not affected by plant density. There was no negative effect of seed size in hybrids, but it was correlated with reduced growth for both parents. CONCLUSIONS: Our results imply that the risk of further gene flow would probably not be mitigated by the small size of transgenic hybrid seeds. No fitness cost was detected to be associated with the Bt-transgene in this study.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207