MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082923437 · doi:10.1139/g99-114

Combined AFLP and RFLP mapping in two hexaploid oat recombinant inbred populations

2000· article· en· W2082923437 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hua Jin, Leslie L. Domier, Xuejen Shen, F. L. Kolb

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplified fragment length polymorphismBiologyRestriction fragment length polymorphismGeneticsPopulationGenetic linkageGenetic markerInbred strainGenotypeGeneGenetic diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A combined RFLP and AFLP map was constructed for hexaploid oat (Avena spp.). The segregation of AFLP markers was scored in two hexaploid oat recombinant inbred line (RIL) populations, the 'Kanota' x 'Ogle' RFLP population, and a population derived from 'Clintland64' and 'IL86-5698', barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV)-sensitive and BYDV-tolerant lines, respectively. More than 300 AFLP markers were scored in each population, of which 97 could be scored in both populations. AFLP markers were linked to RFLP markers in 32 of 36 'Kanota' x 'Ogle' RFLP linkage groups. The addition of the AFLP markers to the 'Kanota' x 'Ogle' RFLP data set combined markers from four pairs of linkage groups and increased the size of the map from 1402 cM to 2351 cM. Thirty linkage groups were observed in the 'Clintland64' x 'IL86-5698' population, two of which could be consolidated by comparing the maps from both populations. The AFLP and RFLP markers showed very similar distributions in the 'Kanota' x 'Ogle' population with a tendency of each type of marker to cluster with markers of the same type. The placement of a set of AFLP markers on the 'Kanota' x 'Ogle' linkage map will enrich the RFLP map and allow others to relate AFLP markers for agronomically important genes to the reference 'Kanota' x 'Ogle' linkage map.

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 score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations33
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207