Re‐examining the Relationship between Degree of Relatedness, Genetic Effects, and Heterosis in Maize
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The dominance hypothesis is one of two major genetic hypotheses that have been proposed regarding heterosis in maize (Zea mays L.). This study examines two underlying tenets of the dominance hypothesis: (i) Dominant gene action must occur at many loci in order for heterosis to be expressed; and (ii) genetic diversity is a good predictor of heterosis (i.e., differences in gene frequency are required for the expression of heterosis). To examine these tenets, we used a unique set of genetic materials, sister‐line inbred lines. Sister‐line inbred lines are highly related inbred lines that are derived from a common parental cross. Three sets of six sister lines were used in this study, ranging between 47 and 77% identical‐by‐descent (IBD), creating a series of lines that potentially vary in gene frequency. The sister lines were mated using a partial diallel to form sister‐line hybrids. The sister‐line hybrids and the parental inbred lines were evaluated in replicated yield trials for grain yield, grain moisture, broken stalks, and test weight in five environments. The genotypic variance was partitioned using Gardner and Eberhart's Analysis III to examine additive and nonadditive genetic effects. Three relevant findings regarding heterosis for grain yield can be drawn from our results: Substantial genome‐wide heterozygosity is not a requirement for the expression of heterosis, there is not a consistent relationship between degree of relatedness and the magnitude of heterosis, and the presence of nonadditive genetic effects is not a requirement for the manifestation of heterosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".