MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078268687 · doi:10.1139/g06-100

Nucleotide-binding site (NBS) profiling of genetic diversity in durum wheat

2006· article· en· W2078268687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paola Mantovani, Gerard van der Linden, Marco Maccaferri, Maria Corinna Sanguineti, Roberto Tuberosa

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRegione Emilia-Romagna
KeywordsBiologyAmplified fragment length polymorphismGenetic diversityGeneticsSequence-tagged sitePolymerase chain reactionRestriction fragment length polymorphismGeneGenetic markerGene mappingChromosomePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular markers are effective tools to investigate genetic diversity for resistance to pathogens. NBS (nucleotide-binding site) profiling is a PCR (polymerase chain reaction)-based approach to studying genetic variability that specifically targets chromosome regions containing R-genes and R-gene analogues. We used NBS profiling to measure genetic diversity among 58 accessions of durum wheat. Mean polymorphism rates detected using MseI and AluI as restriction enzymes were 34% and 22%, respectively. Mean number of polymorphisms per enzyme-primer combination was equal to 23.8 +/- 5.9, ranging from 13 to 31 polymorphic bands. In total, 96 markers over 190 indicated a good capacity to discriminate between accessions (the polymorphic index content ranging from 0.30 to 0.50). The results obtained with NBS profiling were compared with simple sequence repeat (SSR) and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) data of the same set of accessions. The genetic distances computed with 190 NBS profiling markers were in close agreement with those obtained with AFLP and SSR markers (r = 0.73 and 0.76, respectively). Our results indicate that NBS profiling provides an effective means to investigate genetic diversity in durum wheat.

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 score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207