Genetic and Morpho-Agronomic Evaluation of New Tomato Breeding Lines Resistant to Bacterial Speck (Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Tomato)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A breeding program was initiated at the Research Institute of Vegetable Crops, Skierniewice, Poland to select newtomato lines resistant to bacterial speck (Psedomonas syringae pv. tomato (PST) and suitable for field growing. Twotomato cultivars with good agronomic characteristics Luban and Rumba were crossed with resistant to PST ‘Ontario7710’. Then backcross and pedigree breeding procedures were employed to obtain BC5, BC4S1, BC3S2, BC2S3, BC1S4populations. Screening test among those hybrid populations was performed in a greenhouse and exhibited a largeamount of variation in response to PST infection. All plants within BC1S4 progeny of the ‘Luban’ x ‘Ontario 7710’cross and two BC1S4, BC3S2 progenies of the ‘Rumba’ x ‘Ontario 7710’ cross had no symptoms of bacterial speck andcould be assigned to the homozygous category. The remaining progenies were segregating for resistance andsusceptibility and gave distribution of plants over all severity classes. That confirms heterozygosity for resistant genePto of their latter resistant single plant selections before backcrossing or/and selfing. The BC5 populations hadsignificantly higher disease severity rates (DSI = 2.4) than all other selfed populations (DSI = 1.2 – 1.6). After selectionresistant genotypes of the populations were transplanted to the field for morphological traits evaluation. A noticeableprogress in breeding regarding most of the plant and fruit characteristics of the recurrent parents was approached in allpopulations of the ‘Luban’ x ‘Ontario 7710’ cross. Although all progenies of the ‘Rumba’ x ‘Ontario 7710’ differedfrom their recurrent parent as to one feature at least, however the differences showed improved shifting toward thecharacteristics of susceptible parent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".