MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086449957 · doi:10.1270/jsbbs.61.76

Development of backcross recombinant inbred lines between Oryza sativa Nipponbare and O. rufipogon and QTL detection on drought tolerance

2011· article· en· W2086449957 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pham Thien Thanh, Phuong Dang Thai Phan, Naoki Mori, Ryo Ishikawa, Takashige Ishii

Bibliographic record

VenueBreeding Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsBackcrossingBiologyOryza rufipogonOryza sativaInbred strainQuantitative trait locusAlleleGeneticsDrought toleranceIntrogressionMarker-assisted selectionGenotypeBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Backcross populations at advanced generations are useful in evaluating the agronomic traits from unadapted germplasms, such as wild species. In this study, we generated 159 backcross recombinant inbred lines (BRILs) at the BC2F8 generation between Oryza sativa Nipponbare (a recurrent parent) and O. rufipogon W630 (a donor parent). These BRILs were found to have nearly homozygous genome constitutions based on the marker genotypes at 180 SSR loci covering whole chromosomes. Since their selfed progenies have almost identical genotypes in each line, they were further used for QTL analysis of drought tolerance. Out of six QTLs detected, three were found to have wild alleles with favorable effects on drought tolerance. The present BRILs with known marker data can be applied to more QTL analyses of traits specific to wild species.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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