MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resistance to <i>Turnip mosaic virus</i> in <i>Brassica rapa</i> and <i>B. napus</i> and the analysis of genetic inheritance in selected lines

2002· article· en· W2074926386 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Hughes, S. K. Green, Derek J. Lydiate, John A. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Pathology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsBrassica rapaBiologyTurnip mosaic virusBrassicaGeneticsEpistasisAlleleGenetic analysisResistance (ecology)Inheritance (genetic algorithm)PotyvirusVirusGeneBotanyPlant virusAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty‐two Brassica rapa and Brassica napus lines were tested for resistance to Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV) isolates representing the three major pathotypes in Europe. Of these lines, 11 were susceptible to all pathotypes; nine were resistant to one pathotype; eight were resistant to two pathotypes; and 14 were resistant to all three pathotypes. Of the lines tested, 23 were either able to, or had the potential to, discriminate between two different pathotype‐3 isolates. Genetic models for inheritance of resistance were proposed for four B. rapa lines: Jong Bai No. 2 had dominant resistance to pathotype 1 conferred by a single allele; PI418957C and Jin G 55 had recessive resistance to pathotype 4 where a single allele was required; PI418957C also had recessive resistance to pathotype 3 where a model with one of two epistatic, unlinked loci was proposed. Jong Bai No. 1 also had recessive resistance to pathotype 3, apparently conferred by alleles at three loci, where any two of the three loci were epistatic and required for resistance.

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 score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant PathologySame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207