MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083995441 · doi:10.1139/g02-119

The genetic basis of C-glycosyl flavone B-ring modification in maize (<i>Zea mays</i>L.) silks

2003· article· en· W2083995441 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Moises Cortés-Cruz, M. E. Snook, Michael D. McMullen

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusBiologyHelicoverpa zeaFlavonesLocus (genetics)Zea maysPhenylpropanoidGlycosylChlorogenic acidGeneticsChromosomeBotanyBiochemistryGeneBiosynthesisNoctuidaeAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resistance to corn earworm (CEW) (Helicoverpa zea Boddie) has been attributed to high concentrations of C-glycosyl flavones and chlorogenic acid in maize (Zea mays L.) silks. The most common C-glycosyl flavones isolated from maize silks are maysin, apimaysin, and methoxymaysin, which are distinguished by their B-ring substitutions. For a better understanding of the genetic mechanisms underlying the synthesis of these compounds, we conducted a quantitative trait locus (QTL) study with two populations: (Tx501 x NC7A)F2 and (Tx501 x Mp708)F2. For chlorogenic acid, maysin, and methoxymaysin concentration, the major QTL for both populations was located on chromosome 4 near umc1963. For apimaysin, the major QTL in both populations was located at the position of the pr1 locus on chromosome 5. The QTL alleles on chromosome 4 that increased the synthesis of methoxymaysin significantly decreased the synthesis of maysin and chlorogenic acid. This decrease in maysin concentration was four-fold greater than the increase in methoxymaysin. Our results indicate that the QTL on chromosome 4, responsible for the increase in methoxymaysin synthesis, alters the dynamics of both the phenylpropanoid and flavonoid pathways.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207