Evaluation of Ancestral Lines of U.S. Soybean Cultivars for Resistance to Four Soybean Viruses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifty‐two North American (NA) ancestral soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] lines were screened for resistance to Bean pod mottle virus (BPMV), Soybean mosaic virus (SMV) strains G1 and G5, Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV), and Tobacco streak virus (TSV). Seven ancestors, ‘CNS’, ‘Haberlandt’, ‘Ogden’, ‘Peking’, PI 71506, PI 88788, and ‘Tokyo’, were resistant to SMV‐G1. Sixteen entries, ‘A.K. (Harrow)’, ‘Capital’, CNS, FC 33243, Haberlandt, ‘Illini’, ‘Improved Pelican’, ‘Laredo’, ‘Lincoln’, ‘Mandarin’, ‘Mandarin (Ottawa)’, Ogden, ‘Palmetto’, Peking, PI 88788, and Tokyo were resistant to SMV‐G5. All ancestral lines tested were susceptible to BPMV and TRSV. Only one ancestor, ‘Tanner’, was resistant to TSV. On the basis of cultivar registration articles through 2002, there were 15 public soybean cultivars with reported resistance to SMV. The possible donors of resistance for each were identified. Two soybean ancestors, CNS and Ogden, were the most important possible sources of SMV resistance genes in U.S. commercial soybean cultivars, as the pedigree of 75 and 56% of the reported resistant cultivars contained CNS and Ogden, respectively. In most of the cultivar registration articles, reactions to SMV were not reported. With the relatively high frequency of SMV resistance in major ancestral lines, SMV resistance in U.S. cultivars may be more common than expected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".