MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062238000 · doi:10.1139/gen-44-1-38

Identification of barley genome segments introgressed into wheat using PCR markers

2001· article· en· W2062238000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jamie Sherman, L. Y. Smith, Tom Blake, L. E. Talbert

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsRecombinant DNAHordeum vulgareChromosomeGenomePrimer (cosmetics)Polymerase chain reactionCommon wheatGenetic markerGenePoaceaeBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barley has several important traits that might be used in the genetic improvement of wheat. For this report, we have produced wheat-barley recombinants involving barley chromosomes 4 (4H) and 7 (5H). Wheat-barley disomic addition lines were crossed with 'Chinese Spring' wheat carrying the phlb mutation to promote homoeologous pairing. Selection was performed using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) markers to identify lines with the barley chromosome in the ph1b background. These lines were self pollinated, and recombinants were identified using sequence-tagged-site (STS) primer sets that allowed differentiation between barley and wheat chromosomes. Several recombinant lines were isolated that involved different STS-PCR markers. Recombination was confirmed by allowing the lines to self pollinate and rescreening the progeny via STS-PCR. Progeny testing confirmed 9 recombinants involving barley chromosome 4 (4H) and 11 recombinants involving barley chromosome 7 (5H). Some recombinants were observed cytologically to eliminate the possibility of broken chromosomes. Since transmission of the recombinant chromosomes was lower than expected and since seed set was reduced in recombinant lines, the utility of producing recombinants with this method is uncertain.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207