Marker‐assisted selection of common beans for resistance to common bacterial blight: efficacy and economics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The possibility of using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers previously mapped in the common bean PC50/XANI59 population to select for resistance to common bacterial blight (CBB) in different populations was examined. Two out of 02 selected RAPD markers were polymorphic in HR56 and W0633d, the parental lines used in this experiment. Cosegregation analysis of the two polymorphic markers and disease reaction in a recombinant inbred (RI) population derived from HR67/W1744d confirmed that one of the two RAPD markers, BC420 900 , was significantly associated with a major quantitative trait locus‐conditioning resistance to CBB in HR67. This locus accounted for approximately 51) of the phenotypic variation. The RAPD marker was transformed into a sequence characterized amplified region (SCAR) marker and used for selection in a different population derived from ‘Envoy’/HR67. Prediction for resistance to CBB with the BC420 .990 SCAR marker was 94.2% accurate in this population. A comparison between marker‐assisted selection (MAS) and conventional greenhouse screening showed that the cost of MAS is about one‐third less than that of the greenhouse test.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".